Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[Nanners52674]

Gene and Paulette Cranick, of South Fulton, Tennessee, US, lost their home after officers were ordered by bosses not to extinguish it.
Fire fighters only arrived when the flames spread to the property of a neighbour, who had paid the fee. However, they continued to refuse to help the Cranicks.

Later the same day, the couple's 44-year-old son was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, after allegedly punching the local fire chief.
Jeff Vowell, the city manager of South Fulton, said: "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens." Mr Vowell explained that there was no county-wide fire service and it was too expensive for the city's officers to serve surrounding rural areas like the Cranicks' as well.
Rural residents can gain access to the service by paying the annual fee. But "if they choose not to," Mr Vowell said, "we can't make them".
Mr Cranick said: "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." His wife said the couple had offered to pay the fire fighters whatever was necessary for them to extinguish the flames, but the officers refused.
However they do not blame the officers themselves, she said. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault." The Mayor of South Fulton, David Crocker, told local reporters: "We're very sorry their house burned."
However he too stood by the subscription policy, arguing that offering a pay-as-you-go service would mean upfront costs could not be met.
About three hours after the fire began, Mr Cranick's son Timothy allegedly arrived at the South Fulton fire station and asked for Mr Wilds, the fire chief.
It is alleged that when Mr Wilds came forward and asked if he could help, Mr Cranick punched him. "He just cold-cocked him," Mr Crocker said.
Mr Cranick allegedly had to be pulled off Mr Wilds by other firefighters, after having knocked him to the ground. The 44-year-old is said to have been taken to hospital after injuring his hand committing the alleged assault.
Mr Wilds was said by officials to be "doing OK". The Cranicks are temporarily staying in a mobile home.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ption-fee.html

[Elephant Walk]

Good call by the firemen.

[knight_shadow]

*At work, and can't read the full article*

I hope that $75 is per month. If that's the annual fee, I'd put these people on par with folks that drive without car insurance and get into a wreck. Very preventable.

[Kevin]

I have zero problem with what happened. You live in the middle of nowhere and you aren't going to get the same service you'd get in a major metropolitan area. Them's the breaks.

[RaggedyAnn]

I bet quite a few people will be writing out checks now.

[thetygerlily]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

*At work, and can't read the full article*

I hope that $75 is per month. If that's the annual fee, I'd put these people on par with folks that drive without car insurance and get into a wreck. Very preventable.

Throw them in your preventable bucket- it's $75 per year.

[MysticCat]

Why would anyone expect a service that they refused to pay for?

[ForeverRoses]

I wonder if home owners insurance would refuse to payout since the extent of the fire was preventable? I wasn't sure if not paying the $75 would negate the fire insurance portion of home owners insurance.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

*At work, and can't read the full article*

I hope that $75 is per month. If that's the annual fee, I'd put these people on par with folks that drive without car insurance and get into a wreck. Very preventable.

The story says that the $75 is an annual fee.

I live in an area that has a very similar set-up and we pay $108 a year. We had never heard of such a "pay-for-fire-service" prior to moving to this area 3 years ago. It was made crystal clear that you pay the annual fee or else your house will burn, so I watch for the renewel notice each June VERY carefully! If people only had to pay the $75 if there was an actual fire, then what incentive is there to pay? There would be no money to fund the program. As it is, in our area many of the firemen are volunteers. The story makes the chief seem heartless, but if exceptions are made then no one would actually pay.

It is sad that these people lost their house, but this should not have come as a surprise to them.

ETA:

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

I wonder if home owners insurance would refuse to payout since the extent of the fire was preventable? I wasn't sure if not paying the $75 would negate the fire insurance portion of home owners insurance.

We have to show proof that we subscribe to the fire service for our home insurance. I suspect that if we didn't pay one year then it would invalidate the policy. However, you are also assuming that this dumb family actually had home insurance! If they won't pay $75 for fire protection I can't imagine that they are paying homeowner's premiums!

[Kevin]

This works much better than how services worked in ancient times--your house would catch on fire and the fire fighters would show up and let you know how much it would cost you for them to put the fire out.

[RaggedyAnn]

I'd bet it was actually hard on the firefighters to watch the house burn. I don't think most people are that cruel, but I can see why that had to do it. I wonder if they would rescue someone who was trapped inside though? I live in an area where my taxes cover this service, so it never occurred to me that there were places like this.

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by Blondie93

We have to show proof that we subscribe to the fire service for our home insurance. I suspect that if we didn't pay one year then it would invalidate the policy. However, you are also assuming that this dumb family actually had home insurance! If they won't pay $75 for fire protection I can't imagine that they are paying homeowner's premiums!

Very true!

[IrishLake]

As a sister of a firefighter, and the wife of a future firefighter, I feel bad for the firefighters! You know they probably were in angst over not being able to do what they were trained to do, save lives, homes, etc. If there were still people or animals in the house, they would have attempted a rescue, no question, and water would have been applied by the others in whatever capacity was needed in order to get their guys out safe. I'm not saying what the homeowners did was right, but if they had fallen on hard times, and getting that $75 in by a certain date, they should have communicated that with the fire department.

Why isn't that $75 fee tied in with taxes? That's how ours is done.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by RaggedyAnn

I wonder if they would rescue someone who was trapped inside though?

That's what I wonder. It's one thing to let a house burn, but I don't think they'd let someone die.

[IrishLake]

Nope, not a single firefighter that I know would let someone stay in a burning house just because a $75 fee wasn't paid. There's nothing that would stop them from going into that house.