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

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrancisZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spray
Click For 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.
  • #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).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #51
Proton Soup said:
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.

Apparently they don't want it. If they did, they could have either formed their own fire department or paid the city an appropriate amount to cover all of their residents.
 
  • #52
Ivan Seeking said:
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.

that's bad logic. this is more like you forgot to pay your auto insurance, and were out of luck on getting your crashed vehicle replaced.

Evo said:
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.

i suppose they could go after the grandson for arson and resulting animal cruelty.
 
  • #53
jarednjames said:
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.

Did you even bother to read the rest of my post? Basically what you are saying is tantamount to me living in Jersey City and expecting NYFD to come put out a blaze at my house. of Living in Cambridge and expecting the LFB to show up. I don't live in the cities in question, don't pay taxes for the upkeep of those departments, didn't pay the necessary fees to have them come to my property. Why on Earth should I except a free ride?

All of this also reeks of Gene Cranick trying to weasel out of the blame of this situation. Hint it all rest squarely on his shoulders; he "forgot" to pay the fee, and for the kicker his grandson started it by burring trash.
 
  • #54
Argentum Vulpes said:
Did you even bother to read the rest of my post? Basically what you are saying is tantamount to me living in Jersey City and expecting NYFD to come put out a blaze at my house. of Living in Cambridge and expecting the LFB to show up. I don't live in the cities in question, don't pay taxes for the upkeep of those departments, didn't pay the necessary fees to have them come to my property. Why on Earth should I except a free ride?

Once again, I'm not saying people should get a free ride.

If they are the only people capable of helping, they should do so. Clearly the current system is flawed and there should be something in place to ensure everyone contributes to, I don't know, a county fund to pay for use of the local cities fire services.
All of this also reeks of Gene Cranick trying to weasel out of the blame of this situation. Hint it all rest squarely on his shoulders; he "forgot" to pay the fee

OK, let's drop this. We have no proof that he deliberately didn't pay the fee and no proof that he forgot to. I have never said he actually forgot, if anything I agree he deliberately didn't pay, however, unless we have evidence to prove he didn't pay it intentionally and not because he forgot, you cannot keep on saying or implying he did it deliberately (PF guidelines require proof for claims, unless someone gives proof then drop it).
and for the kicker his grandson started it by burring trash.

This isn't a valid argument for not assisting with the fire. On this basis, people who's houses burn because they leave lit cigarettes lying around shouldn't be helped? People who leave Christmas lights on that catch fire should be ignored?
The argument here is because he didn't pay some charge for the services, not who started it. If we decided which fires we dealt with on a basis of who's to blame, there'd be a lot of charred buildings.
 
  • #55
jarednjames said:
Once again, I'm not saying people should get a free ride.

If they are the only people capable of helping, they should do so. Clearly the current system is flawed and there should be something in place to ensure everyone contributes to, I don't know, a county fund to pay for use of the local cities fire services.

You say that people shouldn't get a free ride, but then you expect the taxpayer to bail Gene out?
 
  • #56
CRGreathouse said:
You say that people shouldn't get a free ride, but then you expect the taxpayer to bail Gene out?

I expect them to fine him and recover the costs. But it would seem they didn't build this into the charge system.

All the millions of dollars the 'first world' countries send out in charity aid to the third world and disaster areas and yet people argue over providing emergency services to their own population. The UK sends millions in foreign aid and to the EU every year and yet constantly complains they don't have enough for education and health care. What are the people who make these decisions thinking?

All I have seen so far is that the majority of people in this thread believe that anyone who doesn't contribute (any homeless person, the poor etc) doesn't deserve any help from the emergency services. A homeless person is beaten up in a rural area, a city officer driving through sees this, they do nothing. Why? Because he hasn't paid for the services. Is this right?
 
Last edited:
  • #57
jarednjames said:
I expect them to fine him and recover the costs. But it would seem they didn't build this into the charge system.

Once again, how? Not only do they lack jurisdiction, but he didn't do anything wrong. (And the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so none of that.)

(This is entirely aside from the question of where Gene would get the $50,000 or $200,000.)
 
  • #58
I've just been reading through and a number of fire departments across the states have sent bills to various people after helping them. It would appear that home insurance has taken them over.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fire...-horrify-residents-insurance/story?id=9736696

According to this one, the state law makes the billing legal. Does the state this guy is in have such a law?
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/83002102.html
In this case, the company valued the response at nearly $15,000. It's a bill that is perfectly legal, according to state law, and a charge the department could even collect by going to court, which Precinct 3 has never done.

It would appear that Tennessee has a law against fire department billing. It would seem to be the reason they can't charge for the service without breaking the law.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
jarednjames said:
Is this right?

I wouldn't want to speak for the others on the thread, but I imagine the answer is "no". In fact, I'd be surprised if even a single person said that on this thread.
 
  • #60
jarednjames said:
It would appear that Tennessee has a law against fire department billing. It would seem to be the reason they can't charge for the service without breaking the law.

Nitpick: There would have to be not just no law against it, but a law specifically granting that ability. There's no law that says I can't remove a ghost from your house, then bill you for it, but I couldn't (unless we agreed on that beforehand, of course).


Being able to charge $15,000 for a fire response (assuming you were able to collect) wouldn't, by my calculations (see above), be nearly enough to run the fire department, though. At that rate they'd be running a charity, at South Fulton's expense, to support the rural Obion County residents. What would South Fulton residents think? I don't know.