Is the $75 fire service fee fair for residents in rural areas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrancisZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spray
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the tragic case of Gene Cranick, who lost his home and pets in a fire after failing to pay a $75 annual fire service fee. Participants debate the morality and legality of the fire department's decision not to intervene, questioning whether basic human decency should override strict adherence to policy. Many argue that allowing the animals to perish is inhumane, while others emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in paying for services. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of emergency services funding and the fairness of charging fees for fire protection in rural areas. Ultimately, the incident raises significant ethical questions about the balance between individual accountability and community support in emergency situations.
FrancisZ
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

I can't believe this. That man may be at fault for neglecting to pay the $75 fire service fee, but this is plainly inhuman. His animals died in the blaze. Makes you wonder: if there were people still in the house, would they have put the fire out then? Or would they have still stood by, and continued to wag a finger for being cheap?

This isn't just a matter of legality; what about basic human decency? There comes a point when you MUST think for yourself; in lieu of simply following "orders," like a nazi drone.


:frown:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What if they were to put out the fire. What does that tell everyone else? Forget paying your bill, just wait until something happens and we'll still do the job and then maybe (but probably not) you'll pay us later.

If someone didn't have insurance and their house was broken into, is it an issue of human decency if no insurance company will go and pay for their neglectfulness?
 
Pengwuino said:
What if they were to put out the fire. What does that tell everyone else? Forget paying your bill, just wait until something happens and we'll still do the job and then maybe (but probably not) you'll pay us later.

If someone didn't have insurance and their house was broken into, is it an issue of human decency if no insurance company will go and pay for their neglectfulness?

Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.

I don't think reimbursing someone for a stolen TV is the same as letting someones pets burn to death.

There is no reason why the fire service couldn't include a $500 bill in their service agreement for putting out the fire if someone didn't pay their $75 annual fee.
 
Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection?
 
NeoDevin said:
Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection?

Seconded. I'm not all about big government, but I would assume fire protection falls under everyone's definition of a minimum sized government!
 
G01 said:
Seconded. I'm not all about big government, but I would assume fire protection falls under everyone's definition of a minimum sized government!

From the link:

Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

Well, look at it this way. He chose to live in an area that didn't have fire protection, outside the city limits (perhaps because the taxes are lower :rolleyes:?) and didn't pay for coverage. He also says he didn't have sufficient fire insurance to cover the loss, but I don't expect the insurance company to take pity and give him 100% coverage.

I'd say the fire department was within its rights, but still, I can't stand the thought of animals burning in a fire...:cry:. I bet the next day, the department was flooded with $75 payments from rural residents in the area.
 
Where is Marcus Licinius Crassus when you need him?!
 
You have to pay an annual fee in the US?

Just comes straight out of your taxes in the UK, no say in it. No fire service would refuse to put a fire out here.

What a rubbish set up. Allowing animals to burn to death. That is cruel and someone should be punished for it.

They should just put the fire out and then fine the man for not paying (perhaps $500 as above). Teach him not to do it again.
 
Ah, so he is paying for a rural service?

In which case, they were still incredibly cruel to let them burn to death.

Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that.

"Ah yes sir, you didn't pay your $75 so we're going to let all your worldly possessions and pets be destroyed."

Does the article say he chose to live there or are we just assuming he had a choice in the matter?
 
  • #10
jarednjames said:
Ah, so he is paying for a rural service?

In which case, they were still incredibly cruel to let them burn to death.

Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that.

"Ah yes sir, you didn't pay your $75 so we're going to let all your worldly possessions and pets be destroyed."

Does the article say he chose to live there or are we just assuming he had a choice in the matter?

No - the point is, he *chose not* to pay for fire coverage. And yes, it's cruel to think the animals died that way, horrible, really. Ultimately the responsibility lies in the hands of the pet owner. He gambled, and his animals suffered a terrible fate because of it.

And what would they fine the owner for? He broke no law.

Why would you assume he doesn't have a choice where to live?
 
  • #11
jarednjames said:
Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that.

I agree. There is no reason why it couldn't be treated as a billable service in emergencies like this. Pay $75 dollars a year, or risk a $10K bill if you need us.
 
  • #12
lisab said:
He chose to live in an area that didn't have fire protection

I didn't assume he had no choice. You assumed he chose to live outside of the fire coverage area. I simply pointed out that is an assumption it isn't fair for you to make as he may not have had a choice in the matter.
he *chose not* to pay for fire coverage

The article says he forgot. Again, you are assuming he chose not to and this is unfair, we have no way of knowing whether or not he chose to pay or whether or not he actually forgot to pay.

They are currently looking at making drunks pay for emergency medical treatment in the UK as it is costing the NHS too much. These people haven't broken any laws, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for their own stupidity.

Forgot to pay or chose not to, still shows a mistake on his part. But is it a mistake that should be dealt with by means of a fine, or by inhumanely killing pets?
 
  • #13
Google is your friend.

Topher925 said:
There is no reason why the fire service couldn't include a $500 bill in their service agreement for putting out the fire if someone didn't pay their $75 annual fee.

They do, even if one does pay the annual fee. And, less than 50% of the time they collected.

The cost of fighting a fire is much, much higher. $10,000 or more. If they can't collect $500, how can they collect $10,000? And without the money coming in, how do they pay the firefighters, buy the fire trucks, etc.

NeoDevin said:
Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection?

Sure. The city of South Fulton provides essential services for the city of South Fulton.
 
  • #14
The law was in place for 20 years, and if he forgot to pay then he was well aware of the policy. The article also made a valid point if you could call up and get the service by paying then nobody would pay till there was a problem. Fire services are expensive to run, if people in the city are the only one to pay for it then how is it fair to give the benefit to people who don't pay?

When I lived 100 feet from city limits I was made well aware that If I wanted city emergency services like fire, police, and EMT-ALS services I had to pay. If not I got a volunteer fire service (45 min response time) , the county sheriff (45+ min response time), and EMS-Basic (1 hour response time). Guess what I payed three extra fees to have city emergency services include my address.
 
  • #15
Vanadium 50 said:
Sure. The city of South Fulton provides essential services for the city of South Fulton.

Which level of government is responsible for looking out for the residents outside the city?
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
Google is your friend.



They do, even if one does pay the annual fee. And, less than 50% of the time they collected.

The cost of fighting a fire is much, much higher. $10,000 or more. If they can't collect $500, how can they collect $10,000? And without the money coming in, how do they pay the firefighters, buy the fire trucks, etc.

The same way a construction company or mechanic does: Place a lien on the property.
 
  • #17
Argentum Vulpes said:
The law was in place for 20 years, and if he forgot to pay then he was well aware of the policy. The article also made a valid point if you could call up and get the service by paying then nobody would pay till there was a problem. Fire services are expensive to run, if people in the city are the only one to pay for it then how is it fair to give the benefit to people who don't pay?

If that really is a legitimate problem, and I seriously doubt it would be as almost everyone buys insurance, which is what this really is, then he should be fined for not paying on time. Not responding to an emergency is simply unacceptable. This is especially absurd given that we are talking about $75.

This gets back to the logic that people should be left dying on the highway after an auto accident, if they refuse to buy health insurance.
 
  • #18
Argentum Vulpes said:
The law was in place for 20 years, and if he forgot to pay then he was well aware of the policy. The article also made a valid point if you could call up and get the service by paying then nobody would pay till there was a problem. Fire services are expensive to run, if people in the city are the only one to pay for it then how is it fair to give the benefit to people who don't pay?

Ah, I see, only the people in the city pay taxes. People out of town don't. It all makes sense now. :rolleyes:

And on that note, what about the people in the city without jobs, who aren't paying taxes or any contribution to the fire service?

I can't believe people are justifying the killing of two pets and the destruction of someones home all because of $75.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
This would be like driving to the hospital with your arm cut badly and them turning you away for no insurance.

If the owner stated that there were animals in the house, the fire department is certainly at fault, and could be sued, fined, and even some jail time possibly.
 
  • #20
jarednjames said:
all because of $75.

Of course, it's not about $75: it's about (number of residents) * $75, a much larger sum.

For those suggesting 'emergency' fire services for $500 or $10,000: to keep revenues equal, these would suggest that fires occur at a rate of one fire per ($500 / $75) houses per year and one fire per ($10,000 / $75) houses per year, respectively. Based on rough statistics I gather, there are many fewer (rural house) fires -- it's more like one fire per 2,000 or 3,000 houses per year.

This suggests that (rural) fire departments couldn't fund themselves even on $100,000 per house.
 
  • #21
I'm curious, out of all the people saying they were right not to put it out. Put yourselves in that guys shoes. Imagine you forgot (regardless of intentionally or otherwise) to pay and your house was burning down. Would you really stand back and watch your house (and pets) go up in flames, saying "ah well, I did forget to pay the charge after all."?
 
  • #22
jarednjames said:
And on that note, what about the people in the city without jobs, who aren't paying taxes or any contribution to the fire service?

The city likely collects most if not all of its taxes from property taxes

Ivan Seeking said:
The same way a construction company or mechanic does: Place a lien on the property.

Based on a verbal agreement? I question whether this is possible either way... my understanding is that mechanic's liens are a specific form of lien that is legislated to exist. Not just anybody can place a lien on a property, and considering the property in question is outside of the city's jurisdiction it's not obvious to me that such an act would necessarily be possible
 
  • #23
CRGreathouse said:
Of course, it's not about $75: it's about (number of residents) * $75, a much larger sum.

For those suggesting 'emergency' fire services for $500 or $10,000: to keep revenues equal, these would suggest that fires occur at a rate of one fire per ($500 / $75) houses per year and one fire per ($10,000 / $75) houses per year, respectively. Based on rough statistics I gather, there are many fewer (rural house) fires -- it's more like one fire per 2,000 or 3,000 houses per year.

This suggests that (rural) fire departments couldn't fund themselves even on $100,000 per house.

They turned up to the neighbours. They ignored this guys house. They let the pets die. I see an animal cruelty case coming up here.

If people not paying is such a problem and presents such a devastating set of consequences, why not just make the law so it says people must pay the $75?
 
  • #24
I can't imagine them not rescuing the pets and taking them to an animal shelter if it was at all possible. I certainly hope charges of animal cruelty are filed.
 
  • #25
jarednjames said:
If people not paying is such a problem and presents such a devastating set of consequences, why not just make the law so it says people must pay the $75?

This guy doesn't live inside the city limits. They have no jurisdiction over him.
 
  • #26
Sorry it was the bit after for you.
 
  • #27
jarednjames said:
Sorry it was the bit after for you.

Ah. Well, Office_Shredder seems to have answered that part.
 
  • #28
Office_Shredder said:
The city likely collects most if not all of its taxes from property taxes

And if they can't afford to pay the tax?
 
  • #29
CRGreathouse said:
Ah. Well, Office_Shredder seems to have answered that part.

Someone has jurisdiction, they can make those people pay if it poses such a problem.

Besides, what if someone can't afford to pay? Do you just ignore them?

I just can't understand this mentality of not helping those who can't afford it. (I'm not saying he couldn't afford it, just seems to be the way people think though)
 
  • #30
jarednjames said:
And if they can't afford to pay the tax?

Then a tax lien is placed on their house and its eventually confiscated to be auctioned off by the city.

Someone has jurisdiction, they can make those people pay if it poses such a problem.

Who? Why would you make this assumption? The county probably could make a fire department, or even the state, but they didn't. Why don't you rip on the state for not having a fire department for this guy?
 
  • #31
jarednjames said:
They turned up to the neighbours. They ignored this guys house. They let the pets die. I see an animal cruelty case coming up here.

You're assuming of course that the pets would have been saved if the fire department responded... there's no way to know this. By the time they responded the pets might have already died of smoke inhalation.

The fact is the guy should have paid his fee if he wanted fire coverage, not paying the fee was a terrible oversight on his part, and not the fault of the fire department. In some ways he's lucky they didn't respond and slap him with a $50,000 bill, three new pets are a lot cheaper than that. As it is he was under insured too, we obviously can't expect an insurance company to retroactively bill him premiums and pay for replacing his house.

Part of living in a free country is taking responsibility for your property and it's protection. It's tragic he lost everything, but it's no one's fault but his own.

jarednjames said:
If people not paying is such a problem and presents such a devastating set of consequences, why not just make the law so it says people must pay the $75?

I've got a better idea- let's make it a law that if you don't pay for a service, you should have no expectation of being able to use it (wait, that already exists).
 
  • #32
Office_Shredder said:
Who? Why would you make this assumption? The county probably could make a fire department, or even the state, but they didn't. Why don't you rip on the state for not having a fire department for this guy?

What assumption? Are you telling me no one in the US has jurisdiction over this guy?

All I am saying is if people not paying is such a problem, then just impose a law that says these rural areas must pay the amount required. I'm not saying anyone should create a fire department. The city services are clearly capable of providing the required services.
 
  • #33
jarednjames said:
I just can't understand this mentality of not helping those who can't afford it. (I'm not saying he couldn't afford it, just seems to be the way people think though)

I'm not interested in the mentality, I'm interested in the problem of funding a fire department. This one has taken a particular approach. Many people on this thread have criticized it, but none have proposed a viable alternative. Can you?
 
  • #34
Most of these arguments against the firefighters are borderline ridiculous. You can't argue a case by going to the emotional "the cats died!" argument. That's like saying we should all be able to not pay health insurance premiums until we find out we have cancer and then get to pay the fee someone without cancer would pay. That's not how insurance works.

And let's stop being stupid and pretending the guy "forgot". He probably hasn't paid for years. He should be the one tried for animal cruelty for not paying for fire service and having pets.

Although it sure does seem that the trend these days that OTHER people are suppose to be responsible for someones neglect and laziness.

jarednjames said:
I'm curious, out of all the people saying they were right not to put it out. Put yourselves in that guys shoes. Imagine you forgot (regardless of intentionally or otherwise) to pay and your house was burning down. Would you really stand back and watch your house (and pets) go up in flames, saying "ah well, I did forget to pay the charge after all."?

This isn't an argument. Most people aren't stupid enough to ignore paying for important services like having a fire department able to come out to your place.
 
  • #35
Mech_Engineer said:
You're assuming of course that the pets would have been saved if the fire department responded... there's no way to know this. By the time they responded the pets might have already died of smoke inhalation.

And if there were people in there would you apply the same logic?
Part of living in a free country is taking responsibility for your property and it's protection. It's tragic he lost everything, but it's no one's fault but his own.
I've got a better idea- let's make it a law that if you don't pay for a service, you should have no expectation of being able to use it (wait, that already exists).

Then I'm glad to be in the UK, where there is no discrimination against people for reasons such as this. Everyone gets treated the same when it comes to the emergency services.
 
  • #36
jarednjames said:
All I am saying is if people not paying is such a problem, then just impose a law that says these rural areas must pay the amount required. I'm not saying anyone should create a fire department. The city services are clearly capable of providing the required services.

Are they? I'd bet they're under-funded, under-staffed, and over-worked as it is... The fact is they offered coverage for a very reasonable fee and he didn't pay it (it doesn't matter if he legitimately forgot to or not).

They never mention what the recurrence of the $75 fee is, or how long the guy "forgot" to pay it. Seems to me, if he hadn't paid $75/month for the last two years, he had it coming. Forgot one month out of the last 10 years, different story.
 
  • #37
Pengwuino said:
Most of these arguments against the firefighters are borderline ridiculous. You can't argue a case by going to the emotional "the cats died!" argument. That's like saying we should all be able to not pay health insurance premiums until we find out we have cancer and then get to pay the fee someone without cancer would pay. That's not how insurance works.

I haven't said that, and I don't think anyone here has. I said to fine him, make him pay the full cost.
You get cancer with insurance, the insurance pays for it. You get cancer without insurance, you pay the full price for it.
 
  • #38
jarednjames said:
And if there were people in there would you apply the same logic?

It's obviously different if there were people in there... but still no guarantee if they would have been saved. In fact if they hadn't already gotten out of the house, chances are they would have been dead by the time the fire department arrived.

They don't mention in the article how far outside the city limits this guy was, but I'm imagining he was a 15-30 minute drive... too far to have instant life-saving response.

jarednjames said:
Then I'm glad to be in the UK, where there is no discrimination against people for reasons such as this. Everyone gets treated the same when it comes to the emergency services.

They guy lives out in the sticks, the issue isn't that he was discriminated against.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
jarednjames said:
You get cancer without insurance, you pay the full price for it.

And if you don't (can't) pay for it, you don't get the treatment...
 
  • #40
Mech_Engineer said:
They guy lives out in the sticks, the issue isn't that he was discriminated against.

Really? From the article:
Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

"They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said.

They let his worldly possessions go down the drain all because of $75. (And before you start quoting all this 'is it monthly / yearly payments' stuff, the article says $75, no more, so that's all we can go with.)

So, would you all agree then that a person who doesn't work, doesn't pay any tax, doesn't contribute in any way, shouldn't receive any protection from the police / army?
 
  • #41
The article says they "eventually showed up," telling me by then the guy's house was a pile of burning ashes.

jarednjames said:
They let his worldly possessions go down the drain all because of $75. (And before you start quoting all this 'is it monthly / yearly payments' stuff, the article says $75, no more, so that's all we can go with.)

THEY didn't, HE did.

jarednjames said:
So, would you all agree then that a person who doesn't work, doesn't pay any tax, doesn't contribute in any way, shouldn't receive any protection from the police / army?

Different services with different requirements and jobs.
 
  • #42
jarednjames said:
Then I'm glad to be in the UK, where there is no discrimination against people for reasons such as this. Everyone gets treated the same when it comes to the emergency services.

A country that doesn't discriminates against irresponsible people. What a country the UK has become.

And let's stop fooling ourselves. You can't run a system like fire departments where you just pay when you need it. People don't handle what realistically would be $20,000+ fees all that well. That's why you buy health insurance, people can't just get cancer one day and up and afford a $70,000/year chemo treatment plan or a $10,000 surgery and go on their merry way.
 
  • #43
Mech_Engineer said:
The article says they "eventually showed up," telling me by then the guy's house was a pile of burning ashes.

Wow, you got this from three words? I'd love to know how you arrived at this conclusion.
 
  • #44
Pengwuino said:
A country that doesn't discriminates against irresponsible people. What a country the UK has become.

Yeah, how dreadful. A government that cares for everyone, not only those who can afford it. (Regardless of whether or not this guy chose to pay, someone in a similar situation but who cannot pay would receive the same treatment.)
And let's stop fooling ourselves. You can't run a system like fire departments where you just pay when you need it. People don't handle what realistically would be $20,000+ fees all that well. That's why you buy health insurance, people can't just get cancer one day and up and afford a $70,000/year chemo treatment plan or a $10,000 surgery and go on their merry way.

Again, I'm not saying pay when you need it. I'm saying, everyone pays the $75 charge. If they don't and then require the services then they are fined the full cost of the services used. This still conforms to your way of thinking as it means it's still their problem if they don't pay the $75.
 
  • #45
jarednjames said:
Again, I'm not saying pay when you need it. I'm saying, everyone pays the $75 charge. If they don't and then require the services then they are fined the full cost of the services used. This still conforms to your way of thinking as it means it's still their problem if they don't pay the $75.

I personally think this sounds like an OK option as long as the people pay for the full bill when they get it. The problem is, this is basically the same option available in medical care, and LOTS of people forego medical insurance (and then skip out on the bills when they need treatment)...

Another problem- say the fire department can bill you $50,000 for responding to a fire and you didn't pay your premiums. The owner can't pay (if they can't pay this they probably couldn't pay for the house to be repaired either), so to get their money the city puts a lien on the house and takes it. Problem is, the thing has fire damage and isn't worth $50k so the city can't recoup it's costs and they want insurance to pay the difference... So to come full circle now the homeowner's insurance company starts requiring policy holders to pay for fire protection as well. The cycle continues...
 
  • #46
The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

I have another word for it: Unconscionable.

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

I hope his insurance company sues the snot out of the fire department, and wins.

jarednjames said:
Again, I'm not saying pay when you need it. I'm saying, everyone pays the $75 charge. If they don't and then require the services then they are fined the full cost of the services used.

Exactly! The FD's actions were just unconsionable, particularly after Cranick offered to pay for the cost of putting out the fire.
 
  • #47
jarednjames said:
I said to fine him, make him pay the full cost.

How? He didn't break any laws.
 
  • #48
Couldn't policy makers add that people without coverage pay about 10 times if they get fire? What would have been wrong with this?

Considering this it is them who are to blame if they said people who do not pay will not get this service.
 
  • #49
Mech_Engineer said:
Another problem- say the fire department can bill you $50,000 for responding to a fire and you didn't pay your premiums. The owner can't pay (if they can't pay this they probably couldn't pay for the house to be repaired either), so to get their money the city puts a lien on the house and takes it. Problem is, the thing has fire damage and isn't worth $50k so the city can't recoup it's costs and they want insurance to pay the difference... So to come full circle now the homeowner's insurance company starts requiring policy holders to pay for fire protection as well. The cycle continues...

Right -- just what I was thinking. Only with $200,000 instead of $50,000...
 
  • #50
it's not the fire department's fault. it's a city fire department. for a fee, they offer private coverage to people outside their area.

if anyone is at fault here, it is the people of Obion County for not doing the right thing and setting up a county-wide fire service, complete with the taxation to cover it.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top