If you don't pay for protection, should fire companies let your house burn down? It happened.

By | October 6, 2010, 5:36am PDT

Summary: According to reports, the firefighters stood there watching, as they let Mr. Cranick’s house burn to the ground.

Inside the South Fulton fire department.

If you don’t pay for protection, should fire companies be allowed let your house burn down? This is the sort of mundane-yet-deep question a society has to face when it chooses to be governed, rather than function as an anarchy.

Here’s the story. The city of South Fulton, Tennessee has a fire department. The county of Obion does not.

There are some people who live in Obion who do not live in South Fulton, but still want fire protection from the South Fulton FD. These people aren’t citizens of South Fulton, aren’t part of the tax base of South Fulton, and, frankly, aren’t South Fulton’s problem. And yet, they still want their homes protected.

To solve this problem, the city of South Fulton provides a for-pay service, where non-residents pay $75 a year and, in return, if there’s a fire, the South Fulton fire trucks roll.

When you have governance, you get the eventual civics questions.

For example, what if Person A lives next to Person B, but only one pays his $75? If there’s a fire and a truck rolls, what do the firefighters do? Do they fight both fires or let one burn?

This happened. A Mr. Gene Cranick of Obion County did not pay his $75 fee. Now, we don’t know anything about Mr. Cranick. We don’t know if he couldn’t afford the fee, if he forgot to pay, or was simply choosing to opt out.

In any case, time passed as time always does, and one day, Mr. Cranick’s home caught fire. Since he doesn’t pay for the South Fulton fire service, the South Fulton fire department didn’t roll. But Mr. Cranick’s neighbor did subscribe to the service, so when the neighbor called, the SFFD did respond, and protected the neighbor’s house.

According to reports, the firefighters stood there watching, as they let Mr. Cranick’s house burn to the ground.

The story gets more complex as it was revealed that even though he hadn’t paid his fire protection fee, Mr. Cranick offered essentially anything to the South Fulton Fire Department, if they would only save his home. As the story is told, Mr. Cranick was refused.

Again, we don’t know the full story. We don’t know if the refusal was because the on-the-scene firefighters were previously instructed not to help, whether they didn’t have the right paperwork and contracts to make sure Mr. Cranick would eventually pay, or even whether Mr. Cranick was actually clear in his offer and plea or whether it was interspersed with other, less pleasant words. We just don’t know.

The story itself is sad, but as a civics question, it becomes one worthy of consideration and discussion.

It’s not a simple thing.

For example, if the firefighters did save Mr. Cranick’s house, then wouldn’t they then be showing that the fee didn’t matter? Anyone would get protection, whether or not they paid.

Where would South Fulton draw the line? South Fulton covers Obion County, but then would they be expected to help in Gibson County and Dyer County as well?

What about spreading resources too thin? If trucks roll responding to citizens of other jurisdictions, what happens if there’s a fire in South Fulton and the trucks aren’t available?

What about personal responsibility? Should individual citizens always have a governmental safety net if they refuse to contribute their fair share? Should they ever be denied service and protection?

On the other hand, what about the guy who’s already out of work and just can’t afford the $75? If he loses his house, he most likely becomes a recipient of state aid or a potential criminal. In either case, he’ll cost society more.

And then, what about just simple neighborly decency?

The guy’s frickin’ house was frickin’ burning down. Quite obviously, if the fire department wasn’t there, they were under no obligation to roll. But they were standing right there. They had the resources, they had the ability, and they could have helped.

So what’s the right choice? In my opinion, I think the fire department should have done their best to save that house, and then billed Mr. Cranick a fair amount. Since they were there responding to the neighbor, they should have helped Mr. Cranick as well.

Don’t go trying to pigeonhole me as a lib or a neocon, because I’m neither. I’m a pragmatist and this is a pragmatist answer.

The simple fact is functional Americans are contributors to society. Broken Americans are drains on society and drag the rest of us down.

Mr. Cranick is now essentially homeless. We don’t know if he had insurance, but if he didn’t, he’s likely to seek some form of public assistance, possibly try to sue South Fulton, and otherwise make a burden of himself to his fellow citizens.

You’ll notice I’m not approaching this from either a moral or ethical dimension, although I’ll say this: for those firefighters to just stand there and watch a man’s home burn because he hadn’t paid $75 was just a schmuck move.

I couldn’t have done that. I’ve got a pretty hard heart and can often make some pretty cold decisions, but if I were part of that emergency response team, I don’t care whether I’d have been paid or not, I’d have had to help save that man’s home.

Not because of any religious beliefs, but just because I’m a part of a civilized society and so is he. And because I’d have wanted him to help me if I were in a similar situation.

In 1799, Patrick Henry said, “United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.”

Ya think? As a nation and as states and cities and counties and localities and citizens, it’s time we started working together. It’s time we stopped splitting into factions and make sure the union upon which our existence hangs remains strong.

In other words, people, cut this petty crap out and start working together!

What do you think? Would you have helped?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
200
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

An alternative solution
mbowman8 2nd May
This nation was founded upon ideals that would allow the people to have the resources to fend for themselves without the government holding their hand. Capitalism and democracy allow for the ones who work hard and put effort in to receive results, while the lazy would be encouraged to work hard after they spend time struggling. In the case of this small community with no fire department, why was there no volunteer firefighter service on-scene? I understand the story above, and I believe I would have tried to stop the man's house from burning down instead of watching it burn, but I digress. Why doesn't this community put their head together and create a group of men that will pick up the slack and assist where necessary?
The logical thing that I would have done was save the house and then bill Mr. Cranick for the cost. Cost of fuel and half the cost of those firefighters' time while doing it (since they were there for the other house too).

But I would save it.
0 Votes
+ -
Complex issue
Economister 6th Oct 2010
@jbravo556

On the one hand, standing by and watching someone's house burn down is morally questionable, and in particular if you are a firefighter.

On the other hand, if people in a certain area organize themselves and pay for fire- and police protection etc., they can not also be responsible for an unlimited number of people/properties outside their area. It could bankrupt the people paying for the services.

For property losses only, there is a simple solution: You get a discount on your fire insurance if you pay for fire protection. If a fire results in human casualties, the case is a lot more complex.

I do think a society has to have a way to force people who want protection to help pay for it, otherwise the whole thing would fall apart.
@Economister If a firefighter died fighting that fire, who could be held liable? Could you imagine the city going bankrupt from the widow of the firefighter suing the city because he had an order to put out a fire he should have had no business fighting? The legal ramifications are definitely complex.
0 Votes
+ -
Homeowner's insurance policies ...
mwagner@... 6th Oct 2010
@Economister ... always take into account the availability of fire protection. (And, if Mr. Cranick doesn't have homeowner's insurance, it is his own damned fault!)

The larger issue is that the fire department is made up of peope who are trained as first responders. Instead of doing their jobs, they put the public at risk by not fighting a fire that could have spread far and wide, all because Mr. Cranick didn't pay his $75.

Hospitals routinely charge for ambulance calls - but only after the fact. There is no reason why the fire department could not have done the same.

As for the city/county governments, they should never have allowed an opt-in/opt-out policy to govern the fire department's response to ANY emergency.
  • Flagged
@Economister
Wrong. Help first, then you can call yourself a society.
@Economister - ours is not a nation of morals. It's about supply-side economics and privatization.

Wait until all services are privatized while wages and livelihoods continue to be devalued. Comparing that point in time to today, today is far more... civilized... by comparison. I never thought I'd be saying that...
@Economister
There was a case a couple years back in which firefighters from a city were also members of a volunteer unit for where they lived. One was injured and his insurance from his paid position did not cover him. The firefighters would in a sense be 'volunteers' at this point. Damages to the equipment, expenditures of supplies would be on their heads.

There is a lot more involved than what appears, initially.
@Economister

In a civilised society, infrastructure and protection are provided by the state, not by people who are trying to earn some money.

This type of thing doesn't really happen in the dreaded socialist and mixed economies (Australia, Europe and the rest) because we care more about people than the dollar.

If it's not paid for out of taxes, then someone is getting rich on a protection racket.
0 Votes
+ -
That shows a flaw in the state law
Linux Geek 6th Oct 2010
@jbravo 556
The law allows people to opt out of an yearly fee but does not require them to pay up per incident basis if they chose so.
It's not so different than a medical insurance case where you pay in full to the doctor if you chose not to have insurance.
@Linux Geek Most of the time when a person has no insurance, the doctor is not paid.
@jbravo556 Exactly. I think this is the implied agreement when one counties fire crews are busy fighting brush or forest fires. A neighboring county fire crews will step in and help out, billing the county or those responsible after the fact.
Agree, they should have saved it. But the firefighters were government bureaucrats who do what bureaucrats always do - play by the book, ignore common sense, do the least possible, ignore morality. A for-profit company would have been glad to make money off Mr. Cranick. The fire company's costs are mostly fixed. A charge, of say $30,000, would be all-profit. And a great deal for Cranick as well. Of course some lunatic legislators would try to limit the cost and end such a possibility.
0 Votes
+ -
I'd rather see taxes go up $75 a year
Tigertank 11th Oct 2010
..than watch a neighbors home burn down because he couldn't afford to pay it.

I can't understand why there is even an option to not have fire protection. Letting someone's home burn because they didn't pay up smells of organized crime tactics.

And once again this kind of situation puts the country's most poor at risk. Families who struggle to put food on the table for their children will feel pressure to not pay.
Obviously it needs to be paid for but this is one of those neccesary services that should be included in taxes under the catagory of civilization.
Well stated. There are two sides to this story and not all of the details are known. In the future maybe the fire trucks should carry a release form stating that if they stop the fire and the insurance has not been paid, then the recipient of their aid is responsible for all the expenses of the fire department that were used to put out the flames, from the gas to get there to the cost of refueling the tanker truck. (Yep, water isn't free.) Sign the document and the water gets turned on. Of course, that smacks of coercion or just more big government paperwork, doesn?t it? There is just no winning is there, some one is going to find a reason to complain.
0 Votes
+ -
A law is after all a law
LBiege 6th Oct 2010
Shall we all execute it like these Tenn firefighers, we would not have been in the current mess.
@Alex_St The point you mentioned from the article that most are missing is the fact we don't have all the details.

1. I believe I heard that this fire department has two full time employees and the rest are volunteer. I am sure this would effect what they can and cannot do from both a financial and a liability stand point.

2. Why did he not pay the fee initially? Maybe he forgot, maybe he can't afford it or maybe he refused. Any of these options changes things complete. If he always paid but forgot then they should have put it out. If he couldn't afford it, why. I know that's somewhat an immoral question but if he couldn't afford it because he is spending all his money unneeded luxuries such as a new vehicle plasma TV rather than paying for fire protection that he didn't think he would need them it's his fault and his problem in my opinion. There are far to many people these days that expect society to take care of them while they don't even attempt to take care of themselves let alone do their part for society. Now if he just always refused to pay for the service let alone if he was vocal about it then once again it's his problem in my opinion.

There are a lot of areas that don't have services such as a fire department and people don't expect one to show up. The county could add $75 to the property taxes of those the city department could cover and all is said and done but that isn't the case and property owners have made the choice to either pay or take their chances. The county could also pay the city when they responded to a fire outside the city tax roll then bill the property owner. Since they could put a tax lean on the property the would eliminate the risk the city would take on if they put out a fire then the owner refused or couldn't pay.

Just not enough details to make an educated judgment call on this one especially since most here probably live it areas with all the services government provides.
For an emergency responder to already be at the scene and refuse to help is outrageous. Luckily there were no people inside the building who died. Firefighters: if you are at a scene of a fire, put it out.
You completely missed another aspect of this type of fire protection, namely there are those who do not want to have the protection.

Years ago, I lived in Champaign, Illinois and a similar situation occurred. A funiture warehouse caught fire, and people were outraged that the Champaign fire department came out to protect adjoining properties but not fight the fire.

It turned out the owner of the warehouse specifically did not want fire protection, since in saving the property the contents of the warehouse would become essentially worthless due to water damage, but the insurance companies would pay less than 50% of the value for damaged goods. The fire chief had been criticized for not fighting the fire, but it turned out the owner had informed the chief he would sue if the fire company did anything to stop the total loss, since it was the only way he would recoup his loss.

The rule as the South Fulton, Tennessee is a logical one that protects against problems like the one described above. For many years much of the country had fire protection you elected to pay for, we forget we still pay for the fire protection it is just lumped into our taxes.
0 Votes
+ -
Not that simple
Economister Updated - 6th Oct 2010
@oldsysprog

If the fire department has to come out and protect your neighbors because your house is on fire, the fire department still incurs costs, and you should still pay, not to protect your property but to protect your neighbors if your place catches fire.

It seems to me you are talking about a fire insurance policy issue rather than a fire protection issue. A loss caused by a fire is a loss caused by a fire, whether it is water damage or heat damage. The solution would be to change the underwriter.

Letting a fire burn itself out in a highly developed area could be considered highly negligent. It may become impossible to save neighboring properties due to the intense heat from the property not "wishing" to be saved. Not knowing the facts, I still question whether yours is an accurate account of the situation.
0 Votes
+ -
And in an undeveloped wooded area ...
mwagner@... 6th Oct 2010
@Economister ... this could have become a wildefire and many lives could have been lost.
0 Votes
+ -
@oldsysprog ... you see, fire protection is about protecting human life, not about protecting property. Property can be replaced, lives cannot!

The warehouse owner was gambling that no one would be in his warehouse were it to catch fire. (He got REAL lucky!) When it did catch fire, the fire chief was complicit with the warehouse owner in defrauding the insurance company who THOUGHT there would be fire protection for the warehouse (or they would not have insured the building at all).

The wholesale cost of furniture is routinely half its retail value so a 50% payment for content from the insurer was reasonable.

As for South Fulton ... it is not the firefighter's call to quibble over $75. They are FIRST RESPONDERS!

The City of South Fulton could have billed Mr. Cranick after-the-fact for costs incurred because he OPTED-OUT of the $75 fee and ended up needing the service.
@mwagner@...
Hold on...
One minute you claim that fire protection is for protecting life, not property and then the next you blast the firefighters for not responding to Mr Cranick's house fire- where no life was threatened, only his property?
If Mr. Cranick decided to opt out of additional coverage (and that is what this is- voluntary additional coverage)- then he opted in for rolling the dice and waiting for the County to respond.
That he rolled craps isn't SFFD's fault, nor their responsibility. If his life was in danger- it would be a different story. But, just as you stated before- this was about property, and it can be replaced.
@davesully@...

But the point is they (the individual firefighters) didn't know. If he had called from outside and said the house was on fire, there was someone inside, would they still not have come? Would they still have stood there? It may be the law, but what firefighter would want the preventable death of a person on their conscience?
@aep528@...
But that isn't this isn't the situation.
He didn't call SFFD at all... any call he would have made to 911 or other authority would not have been routed to them at all as it isn't their area of responsibility. The information that someone was trapped inside or anything else he would have called about would not been routed to them. Regardless- He didn't call out SFFD.
In this case he tried to take advantage of his neighbor's forethough and preparadness. They didn't roll out because of any action on his part- they rolled on the action of their paying customer.
Now, once they got on scene if they had determined that there was a threat to Mr C's person or anyone else, I'm sure they would have acted differently. But there wasn't, so they didn't.
@oldsysprog
Dear Mr/Ms. oldsysprog,

We regret to inform you that your license to breath has expired due to nonpayment. We would offer you a temporary license on credit, however based upon your application above you in fact may be too stupid to live. As you are no longer part of our collective, your options are quite limited; so, where would you like it?

Sincerely yours,
Humanity
@jeverettk
Ah, constructive debate that is focused, well thought out and on point instead of resorting to personal slurs...

I do miss it so....
@davesully
Well see, dave-oh, we can't really have a nice little intellectual debate about this one, buddy. It's one of those things reasonable people call a NO BRAINER.

This is strictly a heart issue. Either you give a flying Beck and save the guy's house or you don't.

So, if feel like you have to stop and think about it and weigh the question and debate, I say don't bother. You simply don't freaking care.

It's not irrational or unintelligent to see someone debating this issue; recognize that they have or are about to completely toss out their own human soul; and then care enough to try to verbally slap them out of it.

That's all. Besides, this is the "Comment" section not the "Debate" section.
@jeverettk
Oh, but you see, we CAN debate this... because it's NOT a no brainer.

If we were talking about protecting his life or even protecting his body from injury- this would be a different discussion. But we're not. We're talking about his property. Property he didn't care enough about to cough up $75 to protect. $75 which would also go towards protecting the lives and propterty of his friends and neighbors.

If I were on site, with the ability, equipment, and training to help... would I not? No, I would have to. Its the moral thing to do.

Can I understand others chosing to not put their life at risk protecting the property of a man who couldn't take responsibilty for his own property, and, as he publically stated, "Figured that they'd come out anyway and put it out". Yep, I can.

Oh, I care... more than you can possibly know... but I also can see it being hard to sympathize with someone who can't be bothered to help protect, not just his own property, but that of his friends and neighbors. It's hard to care for someone who doesn't care about themselves or their community until he needs to put the touch on them.

I don't see where protecting personal property is an issue that can, in any way, effect the disposition of ones humanity or soul. Property can be replaced.

And as for the Comment vs Debate issue... fine I'll cede you that point and modify- you're comments weren't constructive either.

And if you must use a diminutive for my name... I prefer Sully over Dave-oh. Just a fyi
@davesully We're talking about his property. Property he didn't care enough about to cough up $75 to protect. $75 which would also go towards protecting the lives and propterty of his friends and neighbors.

You are making an assumption here - nowhere does it say that he "did not care" to pay the fee. It's entirely possible he forgot it or that he simply did not have the money.
@davedavedavedavedave
I never said we can't have a debate about this. I said we can't have a nice little intellectual debate about this. You can try to justify your bullshnit all you want, but the bottom line is that you DO care. You care enough to sit on the fence and watch. That makes you an execreble person.

Incidentally, he had been paying the fee and simply forgot the last one. If I were his neighbors who DID pay the fee, then I would probably sue the fire department for not protecting my interests in not having my property value drop due to the pile of steaming crispies next door.
  • Flagged
@dave-o'-derrida
Nothing wrong with an appropriately deconstructive comment either
0 Votes
+ -
The warehouse owner sounds cheap
otaddy 7th Oct 2010
@oldsysprog

He doesnt want to pay for additional insurance on the items in his warehouse, he doesnt want to pay the fire dept nor does he want to pay for a "dry" fire system like CO2, etc.

Seems like he should be sued for endangering his neighbors properties. And too bad the local govt didnt require fire protection.
0 Votes
+ -
Pragmatists...
jasonp@... 6th Oct 2010
are often the people who get attacked from all sides, especially when you start talking politics. Unfortunately we live in a society where far too many people see everything through the prism of politics and nothing through the prism of humanity, dignity or common sense. This fellow is now going to be a burden on society no matter how anyone tries to spin it. If he had insurance, his insurance company is probably going to wind up paying out benefits which they'll use along with any other benefits they've paid out to justify raising everyones rates. If he didn't have insurance, there will still be lawsuits against the fire department, the county and possibly individual firemen who showed up on the scene and did nothing. It boggles the mind that we have this scenario playing out in the first place. Pay for fire department coverage? Seriously? What's next, pay for police and ambulance coverage and if you aren't paid up, no police or ambulance for you? It's too bad that we have a lot of people in this country who see that as a step in the right direction.
0 Votes
+ -
Following your logic
frgough 6th Oct 2010
this guy would be a burden on society if the fire department HAD put out his fire. They weren't paid to do so, which means they'll have to spread their cost out among their other paying members. And his house would still have been damaged, and the insurance company would STILL have had to pay out a claim, and the insurance company would STILL have spread its cost among other policy holders. So, what was your point again? Other than proving that you have no critical thinking skills, that is.
@frgough "They weren't paid to do so.", actually, they were. There were paid to protect the neighbours house from damage, and if that entails putting out a fire in an adjacent property, then so be it... but the fact is they WERE paid to be there to perform a duty, the location of the fire is irrelevant, performing the duty is what they were paid to do... and they didn't do it. If the neighbours house was in danger, then by being there, they were claiming pay for NOT performing their duty... sounds like fraud to me.

In the UK, you pay council tax on your property. Do you think that anyone who doesn't pay is allowed to get burgled without investigation? Or to get injured without any medical help? Or to have their house burn down, because they didn't contribute to the fire service that year?

Any person who lets finance come before their responsibility, as a public service employee, should be sacked. As should those in charge who authorise negilgent acts of inaction. You do the job because of the job, not because of the money involved.
@LeeC
But there's a big difference betweem not paying a tax and not paying a voluntary fee. You can be held criminally liable and taken to court or jail for not paying a tax. The government WILL eventually get paid.
This is all an issue of bad planning from inception. The County should have made an agreement with the City FD for coverage in that area and then raised the taxes on those citizens appropriately so that EVERYONE paid for collective services.
In a pay for service model (which this is) as long as life or body was not threatened, then the responders are only responsible to making sure the fire didn't spread to other areas- period.
I'll agree that it is a poor poor model- but they acted as I would have expected them to.
@jasonp@... I'll add to frgough's response by pointing out that we DO pay for fire and police and ambulance coverage- it's called taxes. And the area that these firefighters responded to was outside of their area of response. That they offered protection at all, fee or not, is unusual. Most properly, an arrangement should have been made between the governing bodies of the two areas (County and City) for ALL the individuals in the uncovered area to pay for services. Just like law enforcement entities not being able to respond outside their jurisdictional boundries without being invited in.
It was a poor plan from the get go and should have been dealt with at inception.
@jasonp@... Not a good comparison. Police are paid by taxes and ambulances get paid by the patient. Here in rural MO, we have the same scenario they have above. No tax base to fund a department so it's paid for by annual fees from those covered. You don't pay the fee, you don't have protection. To me, this is just like someone bitching they can't get their car replaced when they total it because they opt not to buy insurance. I think they should have to protect life but not property. Next time, maybe he will appreciate the fact he doesn't pay for fire protection with his taxes and opts to get covered. Or, move to one of the bankrupt liberal states like Nevada, California, or Michigan and not be personally responsible for any of your actions.
@20kwfence

But how could the firefighters on scene actually be sure there was no one in the burning house? They didn't take the call. Isn't it their DUTY to at least check?
@aep528 Firefighters talk to the people on the scene. They had no reason to approach or enter the structure based on the information available to them. When you get to a fire you ask if anybody is unaccounted for... People tend to tell the truth about that stuff.
"Thirty-Two States are Now Officially Bankrupt" - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19292

Nice troll.
0 Votes
+ -
on a number of levels. It's just too perfect a scenario for the "evils of the private sector solution." It has the perfect touch of heartlessness. The convenient neighbors where one paid and one didn't and they both caught fire at the same time. The totally illogical idea of a fire department just standing around and watching a house burn without doing anything, even though said burning would put neighboring homes of those who did pay at risk.

The story is just too "perfect."
0 Votes
+ -
Private sector?
Michael Alan Goff 6th Oct 2010
That was a public sector fire department.

Also, the fee is for those who are outside of the city (those who just didn't have any fire protection beforehand). They need money to pay for their services, or they will go under. Firefighters are also underfunded as it is, which is likely why the fee started (TWENTY YEARS PRIOD).

If this was just some out of the blue thing, I would understand the anger and outrage. But after twenty years of doing this, I would hope that people would be smart and pay for the services. It might sound bad, but I don't feel bad for the guy. He made a choice not to pay for a service, and that service didn't happen.

Cause and effect. Maybe it would have been better for them to just make him pay a huge fee for an on-the-spot service (1k is what an ambulance ride costs, how about 1400?)
@frgough So you dont think it happened? Its not so implausible a thing. It probably happens more often but with less severe consequences. Out of all the possible bad things that happen every day that perfect situation is bound to happen all the time just by the sheer number of emergencies.
0 Votes
+ -
there's almost certainly more to the story than we are being told.
@frgough It's my understanding that the neighbor who paid called because the fire was threatening his fence, not because both houses caught fire or that his was even threatened. Of course this also implies to me that the fire could very well have been so far along by the time they arrived on scene that there was nothing they could do to save the house anyway. If that is the case then there is nothing to discuss really, he didn't pay and his house is in ruins, wouldn't have made a difference if they tried or not.
0 Votes
+ -
America's deepening moral crisis
OS Reload Updated - 6th Oct 2010
@OS Reload Read the replies. I don't know anything about the author of the piece except that he must be a "progressive." I don't like that word. It implies progress when it rarely delivers.
0 Votes
+ -
An alternative solution
mbowman8 2nd May
This nation was founded upon ideals that would allow the people to have the resources to fend for themselves without the government holding their hand. Capitalism and democracy allow for the ones who work hard and put effort in to receive results, while the lazy would be encouraged to work hard after they spend time struggling. In the case of this small community with no fire department, why was there no volunteer firefighter service on-scene? I understand the story above, and I believe I would have tried to stop the man's house from burning down instead of watching it burn, but I digress. Why doesn't this community put their head together and create a group of men that will pick up the slack and assist where necessary?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix