Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

badmojo1006

House in Obion County, Tennessee burns to the ground

450 posts in this topic

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground.

Whew....at least this article is unbiased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they pay the fee?

Are they now going to file a claim with an insurance company that they don't have a policy with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground.

Whew....at least this article is unbiased.
If the guy doesn't pay local taxes that fund the fire department then I don't really have a problem with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground.

Whew....at least this article is unbiased.
:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they pay the fee?Are they now going to file a claim with an insurance company that they don't have a policy with?

This is like a warranty on a car. You can't just wait until the transmission blows up and then buy the warranty. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but there is just no personal responsibility anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with them not putting out the fire, but it's a doosh move to go to the fire and refuse to put it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with them not putting out the fire, but it's a doosh move to go to the fire and refuse to put it out.

They were probably there in case it spread, which is sounds like it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, the Alpha Beta's will just take over the freshman dorms. Nerds, nerds, nerds, nerds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with them not putting out the fire, but it's a doosh move to go to the fire and refuse to put it out.

Maybe they were just there to make sure that it didn't spread to other housese that did pay the fee. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground.

Whew....at least this article is unbiased.
:thumbup:
:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

I'm sure if there was someone trapped in the house they would have gone in. Those firefighters are risking their lives as it is, if the people refused to pay for the service why should they be risking their necks? What would be the point of charging people the fee if everyone knew the fire department would come and put out the fire anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know suppose someone was trapped in that house (say a child) would the firefighters have watched as the kids burned to death?

They were under no obligation to put out the fire but that does not mean they should have just watched it burn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the firefighting company doesn't have some kind of established pricing structure for situations like these (e.g. they'll respond to a non-subscriber's home but it will cost $1500 to put the fire out). It's pretty ####ty that they were there and had the means to stop the fire, but didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

That's what I would have done, I just wonder if they could attach a lien to the house or have another way to ensure these deadbeats pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

I'm sure if there was someone trapped in the house they would have gone in. Those firefighters are risking their lives as it is, if the people refused to pay for the service why should they be risking their necks? What would be the point of charging people the fee if everyone knew the fire department would come and put out the fire anyway?
I don't know the story but how do they know that the bill didn't just get lost in the mail? Maybe they meant to pay, maybe they thought they had paid. Maybe they didn't have the money but intended on paying. Unless these people were known to be incredibly belligerent towards the fire dept...put it out and bill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

Yeah, but then nobody would pay until there was an actual fire and there wouldn't be a fire service in the first place to go put it out. What's really a shame is that the family decided that $75 a year was enough to risk their house over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

That's what I would have done, I just wonder if they could attach a lien to the house or have another way to ensure these deadbeats pay.
I'm assuming the people pay their property taxes and it would probably be easy to attach it to that and use the same mechanisms to make sure they pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they pay the fee?Are they now going to file a claim with an insurance company that they don't have a policy with?

This is like a warranty on a car. You can't just wait until the transmission blows up and then buy the warranty. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but there is just no personal responsibility anymore.
Regardless - Once the fire truck got there, they should have acted. Fire fighters watched a home burn down.Why respond if you are only there to kick someone when they are down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another win for basic human decency.

In the end this is a great posting. Another nail in the coffin of what used to be a good country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the firefighting company doesn't have some kind of established pricing structure for situations like these (e.g. they'll respond to a non-subscriber's home but it will cost $1500 to put the fire out). It's pretty ####ty that they were there and had the means to stop the fire, but didn't.

That seems like a good solution to this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only problem I have with this is

The paper said he told them that, after all, “if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.”

I would expect a mechanic to fix the car and charge me, really not a good analogy. The hospital seems more fitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

I'm sure if there was someone trapped in the house they would have gone in. Those firefighters are risking their lives as it is, if the people refused to pay for the service why should they be risking their necks? What would be the point of charging people the fee if everyone knew the fire department would come and put out the fire anyway?
I don't know the story but how do they know that the bill didn't just get lost in the mail? Maybe they meant to pay, maybe they thought they had paid. Maybe they didn't have the money but intended on paying. Unless these people were known to be incredibly belligerent towards the fire dept...put it out and bill them.
What if they meant to pay? Seriously?Oh sorry IRS, I meant to pay my taxes. It must have gotten lost in the mail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can't have a system like that in place, and then not enforce it.

If the firefighters would put out the fire, then it would be silly to have a "voluntary" tax. So I guess the FFs had to let it burn. I guess I'm ok with it.

That being said, what an incredibly stupid system. Citizen's shouldn't be allowed to "opt out" of basic, necessary, services. It is a recipe for chaos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why respond if you are only there to kick someone when they are down?

To roast hot dogs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if other non-payers are busy writing checks.

This event should help increase sign-ups. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

That's what I would have done, I just wonder if they could attach a lien to the house or have another way to ensure these deadbeats pay.
I'm assuming the people pay their property taxes and it would probably be easy to attach it to that and use the same mechanisms to make sure they pay.
That would be a better way of doing it I think, but I'm guessing the voters didn't want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like a hospital though...take the bullet out and then worry about insurance. Its a completely ##### move to not put it out and just bill them.

That's what I would have done, I just wonder if they could attach a lien to the house or have another way to ensure these deadbeats pay.
I'm assuming the people pay their property taxes and it would probably be easy to attach it to that and use the same mechanisms to make sure they pay.
Some places don't have a large enough tax base to provide municipal fire services, so they just contract it out to a subscription-based third party. I'm guessing Bumblefudge, TN is one of those places. Still makes no sense that any kind of system exists where firefighters would be present on the scene but refuse to fight the fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"House in Obion County, Tennessee burns to the ground axles, with Firefighters watching it burn"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know suppose someone was trapped in that house (say a child) would the firefighters have watched as the kids burned to death?They were under no obligation to put out the fire but that does not mean they should have just watched it burn.

Anyone want to take a stab at this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground.

Whew....at least this article is unbiased.
Just the intro. I was ready to dismiss it as well for that, but the rest of it is word-for-word from the report. and--I find myself somewhat torn with this...One thing for sure--That system Sucks. period. They should have been paying the FD from county taxes if they wanted coverage--not this hit-or-miss garbage. Better yet, the county should be establishing their own rural station--that's what we do in my area. (Country boy here...)On the other hand, that $75 per year is some pretty cheap insurance--and that's exactly what it is: insurance. Given that's the way the county/people are operating the FD acted correctly. You can't buy life insurance after the fact to pay for death benefits. You can't by comprehensive auto after hitting the deer; you can't buy medical for preexisting conditions. They count on making money--or at least breaking even--when balancing claims vs premiums. From the FD's side it's actually a helluvan offer--with no rural department so they're covering it from the city for those who so desire. Betcha those folks reevaluate how they handly fire protection in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know suppose someone was trapped in that house (say a child) would the firefighters have watched as the kids burned to death?They were under no obligation to put out the fire but that does not mean they should have just watched it burn.

Anyone want to take a stab at this?
I'm guessing they would save trapped kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can't have a system like that in place, and then not enforce it.If the firefighters would put out the fire, then it would be silly to have a "voluntary" tax. So I guess the FFs had to let it burn. I guess I'm ok with it.That being said, what an incredibly stupid system. Citizen's shouldn't be allowed to "opt out" of basic, necessary, services. It is a recipe for chaos.

:shrug: They had to foresee something like this happening eventually. Now the entire community will realize that there's a shared cost to not sharing this kind of basic service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the firefighting company doesn't have some kind of established pricing structure for situations like these (e.g. they'll respond to a non-subscriber's home but it will cost $1500 to put the fire out). It's pretty ####ty that they were there and had the means to stop the fire, but didn't.

That would actually make a lot of sense. Although I think the amount would have to be a fairly punitive one to discourage people from not paying the $75 and just assuming they'll pay the fee. Like $5k or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know of many service people or business persons who are expected to provide simply because they are in a position to do so. Are people outraged because they see some sacred trust here?

Frankly I can't imagine that in a rural setting that by the time the department responded there would really be much worth saving. If there was I would assume the water damage that comes with the saving would reduce the value of the home to next to nothing.

For me, I would frather have an insurance check and be able to walk away and repurchase than to have to go through the headache and time of clean up and restoration. Of course, that's just me, I don't suppose others share that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.

what a maroon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.