Fire Fighters Refuse to Fight Fire, Homeowners Forgot to Pay Fee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by spidergoat, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    If they are smart, they will see the folly inherent in the Subscription system and opt for a County wide system, at a piddly $3 per month per house, and never have to deal with this again.

    Arthur
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    What's this $3 a month county service stuff? Is there any paperwork that can be read on it?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,021
    Where was that pointed out directly to them?

    We also know that they have waived and put out fires and protected homes in the past, even though the people had not paid.

    Therefore, it is an established precedent that the fire department would actually do their jobs and put out the fire. We also know for a fact that Cranick and his neighbours offered to pay the fire chief the $75 then and there, before the fire got to his house. Both were refused. We also know that Cranick had offered to pay them whatever they asked for to save his house. He was refused. Now, you and your bum buddy Trooper have pointed out that there is an established precedent where they have put out fires even though the subscription fee had not been paid.

    I'll put it this way, as a lawyer, if I worked for that insurance company, I'd be rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of making that fire department and the City itself bleed from its collective anus at the sheer amount of money they would have to pay. As a lawyer, if I represented Mr Cranick, I would be suing the fire department for mental anguish at the loss of house and home, not to mention beloved family pets. As a lawyer, if I represented Cranick's neighbours, I'd join in that lawsuit for the damage and mental anguish suffered since the fire department's refusal to respond initially resulted in the neighbour's property being severely damaged from that fire.

    And I think you have been missing the point entirely.

    From the link you provided something quite interesting has been pointed out. When the Cranick's initially called the fire brigade as the fire spread across their property, they were told no, because they were not on the subscriber's list. However, it seems the fire brigade should have responded because the fire at that point was classified as a brush fire, which ultimately spread to the neighbour's yard. It seems, from your link and from Cranick's insurers, that the fire department are required, subscription fee or not, to respond to brush fires:

    That last sentence, spoken by Simmons, who is their insance agent, and who, according to your link, rushed to the property as soon as he heard of the fire (which, amazingly enough, the fire department refused to do and failed to do).. That sentence to me says 'ding ding.. incoming lawsuit to recoup the losses'..

    But thank you for that link, it proved quite informative.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Especially the part that says that the fire department are required to respond to brush fires, which they refused to do for the Cranick's..
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Ah, but I see it like this. He had previously failed to pay, and the department had already given him a waiver, at their expense. Failing to pay it again, and expecting a free ride (pay as you need) so to speak, is either stupid, or a deliberate attempt to cheat the system. I personally, would have preferred the department to assist then charge an outrageous fee. The only one who should sue is his neighbor. He should sue the Cranicks for negligence.

    Arthur is correct. The county is responsible.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2629670&postcount=146
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2010
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,021
    Not at their expense at all. He had paid them back for it afterwards.

    Cheating the system, in your world, would have been him refusing to pay anything. He not only offered to pay before his house was destroyed, he offered to pay them whatever they wanted him to pay.. more than he was legally required to pay initially.

    Actually no, he has grounds to sue. Do you know why? Because, as your own link indicates, the fire department is required to respond to brush fires. They point blank refused to do so. That brush fire they were required to respond to and to which they refused to respond to then went on and destroyed his house and killed his pets, which as your link states, would have been prevented if the fire department had responded and put out the brush fire initially, as the insurer states, they were required to do in the first instance and refused. That brush fire also went on and took out the neighbour's field as well.

    Insurers, on a whole, hate to pay. And they normally try to avoid paying as much as they can. In this instance, not only are they more willing to pay Cranick, they have also praised his generosity and praised the family as being 'good people'. And from the insurer's agent's word (from the article you linked - a few times in this thread), the fire department is required to respond to brush fires and they failed and refused to to do so, and that failure and refusal to respond to that initial brush fire then led to Cranick losing his house and the neighbour losing his field.

    As for suing his neighbour for negligence... You mean the neighbour, whom he tried to pay the fire chief the $75 to save the neighbour's house? Right.. And the neighbour who had called and reported a brush fire and the fire department refused to respond to, as they are required to? The fire that then went on to take out his own field? I don't think the neighbour will be suing Cranick..

    From what you linked, the insurer appears to be laying the blame on the fire department for failing and refusing to respond to the initial brush fire call, and as the insurance agent commented, the fire department is required to respond to brush fire calls. And then he went on to comment that Cranick's house could very easily have been saved. I don't think the insurer is holding the county responsible... not if the agent's words are any indication.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    I would do the same, if I forgot to pay my health insurance, then discovered I needed treatment.

    Well, we both know that all sources are not reliable. This was why I asked if it was a rumor.

    We'll see.

    Obviously, I'm just saying that he may have the right to sue, not that he would.


    I don't think it will be up to the insurance agent to decide.

    This is redundant. Why don’t we just wait and see how this unfolds? Let’s see if the city is held legally accountable.

    What bothers me more is that this was perfect timing for shitty politics. How many bigger issues are we facing, and the whole dumb ass country is focused on this, a shitty house, $75 bucks, and a fire protection plan for a county. It’s not only a county but our entire country that is screwed up. I can think of many other issues that are far more detrimental, can’t you?
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,021
    It seems that was all the fire department wanted him to pay at the time.. Since you know, that is the subscription fee.

    So you are saying that had you been in his shoes and forgotten to pay, you'd have been offering them more money?...

    Yes, we shall.

    Of course.

    No. It will be up to their legal department to decide. But on the whole, if an insurance agency sees a way to try to recoup a payment, they will go after it.

    Yes. Lets..

    This was never a political issue.

    But here is something you should consider. The Cranicks are like millions of other Americans who live in rural areas and who also vote. In the interview linked previously, Mr Cranick commented that the Mayor who had given the order for the fire to not be responded to, was playing golf 20 minutes away. While this may seem like a minor thing to you, to the Cranicks it is a major thing because they have lost their home, all their belongings, all the photos and their pets. To them, they have lost everything. In light of this, how will they and their neighbours vote in the next election? Do you think they will support the party, who is represented in Fulton and who is the one who ordered the policy of no response in this instance? I will be surprised if they do.

    It is the little things, if allowed to continue, that will go on to affect everyone as a whole. The Cranicks have shown one thing, and that is that this could have happened to anyone in the rural US. And the fear that it can happen again will have people start to rethink voting for people who implement such policies in the first place.

    But most importantly, it has shown how the opt in method preferred by one side can lead to an absolute failure and breakdown.. You know one thing? Your country and the world (this has been quite well reported here in Australia as well as elsewhere) would not be focusing on this if it was not so ridiculous and the world would certainly not be focusing on it if you did not have the likes of Beck and others mocking and making fun of this family's plight. I mean, look at you, calling it a shitty house. You don't know that. It was their home. It is attitudes like that that has ensured that this be blown up to this kind of proportion.
     
  11. Yellow Jacket Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    198
    I have never heard of having to pay the fire department directly.

    Like others have said, they should have put it out and then made him pay a fee. Took him to court. When other people's properties, when other lives, even if it's just animals are in jeopardy, that is just inhumane.

    Obviously, the cost of the home and the things in it were more valuable than the fee he owed. How does that even out and justify killing animals? How do you put a value on a pet and all the personal things he lost?

    What ever happened to the code and honor of a fire fighter? I put this under the same line as all our professional athletes demanding outlandish fees to play during the hard times, when many are losing their homes, can't find a job, or can barely put food on the table after paying all their bills.....if they can even do that.
     
  12. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    This was never a political issue??? :wtf:

    It is now and the whining libs started it by attacking the integrity of firefighters. Yes. It seems minor to me compared to other issues that our country should be focusing on.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,021
    Believe it or not, it was never a political issue but actually an ethical one.

    It has become a political issue now, and both sides have whined about it.

    When people vote, they will usually vote by how policies and issues affect them and their immediate community directly.

    To Mr Cranick, this is not a minor issue but one that has affected his life and that of his family in the most detrimental way, not to mention affected his community. For example, would you tell him that the loss of his house, home and pets is a minor issue? To him it is a life changing issue. It seems minor to you, but for him and his family, as well as his neighbours and even those firemen, it is a major issue.

    If your country cannot show empathy and compassion to a family that has lost it's home and considers it to be something not worthy of focus at all, especially in light of how that loss came about, then I think your country has lost its way in more ways then you can possibly fathom. When an insurance agent can show more empathy and compassion than a bunch of firemen who let that house burn along with those pets, then yeah, maybe this is something that your country should be focusing on and looking to your own local communities to see just what would happen if something bad and major happened to you and how they would treat you in light of your loss.
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, it's been linked to multiple times.

    http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf

    Page 22 They show the Annual Budget need to do this of $550,000
    Page 21 They show funding choices, a $3 charge on all meters equals $614,000.

    They show some other budget choices, like if renters aren't charged, then the cost could go as high as $6 per month and a $ .13 increase in property tax as other ways to get the $550,000. The point is, its cost, when everyone pays is very reasonable and every single one of them provides Universal coverage at less than the cost people are paying for subscription service.

    Everyone's going on and on about how immoral or unethical the City's actions were but fail to acknowledge that the idea that the fire company won't put out your fire is EXACTLY what you get when you have Subscription service.

    What people are saying is the City should get paid based on an Opt In Subscription service but still provide Service just like a Universal coverage.

    If you think that makes sense, then do you support extending this plan to ALL Americans?

    Should all of us not have the same option as the residents of Obion County and simply pay our small annual fee only if we actually need the service?

    And better yet, if we do need the service, and get hit with the much larger call out fee, be able to tell them to go pound sand?

    Arthur
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Correct, in that a Subscription plan for Emergency services is not very ethical and it's what the County residents want, not what the City or Fire Chiefs want to provide.

    And yet they did, via the plan they came up with to provide EVERYONE coverage at $3 per month, but when that was turned down, then something had to give.

    This Policy has been in place for 20 years.
    They had been giving exceptions, and so they came up with the low cost universal plan in March of 2008, and were turned down.
    They let the first house burn down in July of 2008.
    This is a long simmering problem, and you can't look at it in the light of this is the first time this has happened, indeed they had already put out a fire for this person when he had previously 'forgot' to pay, indeed, he admits that he thought that they would come out even if he hadn't paid, which might explain why he is so forgetful.

    If you look at the City based news report, while they say LOCAL residents are angry, they then give all the coverage to the City Fire Chief to explain why it is what it is and finish with the newscaster lecturing the County residents: "Unfortunately a Lesson Learned".

    http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

    The City is sending a clear message to the County, we are going to quit putting out fires for non-subsrcibers, is this really the system you want?

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2010
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,021
    A few posters mentioned earlier in this thread that this seemed to be a petty 'I'll show them' gesture. Thank you for having confirmed that. I don't think you actually realise the cruelty of their decision, not just in regards to the Cranick's home, but there is also an extreme element of animal cruelty in letting those pets burn to death.

    Now, can you tell me why they did not respond to the initial brush fire as they are apparently required to? Why did they refuse to respond to something that they are required to respond to? That initial refusal then led to the neighbours property being damaged, not to mention the loss of Cranick's home and pets.

    So why did they refuse to respond to the brush fire that they were required to respond to?
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Tough love is tough.

    The reason it is done is that in the LONG run it can help.

    As in the County finally realizing that this Subscription service is not ethical.

    It is NOT fair to the fireman, and it creates a class of people who don't have fire protection because they can't pay the INFLATED fee that is caused by not sharing the cost EQUITABLY among all residents.

    The SOLUTION to that inequity is NOT to make the residents of Union City pick up the tab for the County's refusal to fund a proper fire protection system.



    They may be required to show up for a brush fire, but then the requirement is only to put out the brush fire.

    When the fire spread to the neighbor's yard it became a brush fire and they responded and put out the brush fire.

    Arthur
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,021
    So to make a petty point, a family loses it's home and pets.

    My, what an ideal world some of you people want to make for yourselves.

    So now it's an inflated fee? Weren't you one of the people saying earlier that it was 'just $75'?

    The other residents did not seem to mind that he had not paid, considering his direct neighbour actually tried to pay the fire chief to get them to save that house as well. The fire department's petty behaviour is now going to cost that community much more and the State much more collectively.

    You keep going on about sharing the costs. Did anyone actually think to ask his neighbours if they were upset that he had not paid and that saving his house would have meant, in your sick world view, he was sponging off them? No. You are assuming because that is how you view charity and helping one's neighbours.

    Remember, this is not about you.

    Which they failed to do. When the initial call was made, it was then only a brush fire. They refused to respond and as a result, that brush fire then went on to to destroy the neighbour's field.

    It was actually a brush fire before it even got to the neighbours field. But in their petiness, they failed to act upon their own required policy when they refused to respond to something they were apparently required to respond to, subscription fee or not.

    That failure and refusal on the fire department's part then resulted in damage to the neighbour's property.
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    BS
    What I and the Mayor and the Fire Chief want is a UNIVERSAL coverage system.

    Don't start lying this late in the game.


    It's INFLATED over the $3.00 per month required for Universal fire coverage.
    Please try to keep up.

    Paying for coverage AFTER the event is not part of the plan.
    They signed up for the plan, knowing that the fire dept was not required to come to put out a property fire.

    The CITY fire department was not REQUIRED to fight a COUNTY brush fire.
    You (and maybe the insurance guy) are just making this BS up.

    Their only requirement (as far as I can tell) was to respond to fires on people's property that had paid the fee. Now maybe they CHOSE to respond to other events, but that was their CHOICE.

    Don't create a legal obligation on the Union City fire dept to do anything outside the City limits that you can't provide support for.

    The funding from that county for fire protection was $0.00 and NO county funds were used to provid for 1 cent of the city's fire dept budget.

    Arthur
     
  20. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,129
    Did anyone ask the citizens of the city (who are footing the bill to have an equipped and prepared Fire Department) if they mind that he hadn't helped share in the cost?
     
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    You haven't read the thread at all, have you?
    HE DID HELP SHARE IN THE COSTS. For YEARS.
    He missed ONE payment which he offered to pay up on (And his credit shows that he's good to his word on that.)

    Even that aside, what was done was unethical by legal standards and in abuse of the law, as well as in disregard of the law (Failing to respond when required.)

    If you were informed on the topic, you would not have asked that question.
     
  22. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,129
    I have read the whole thread. It's not the first time he "forgot". If you want to have a Fire Department that is equipped and prepared, you pay as you go - not as you need it.
     
  23. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Adoucette:

    I read the PDF sample. Thank you.

    On page 21, it explains that the ELECTRIC BILL would receive a possible increase in order to generate money for the county to pay for fees.

    It's rather, ambiguous and there is no explanation as to whether the county seat made a determination, whether the residents of the county did or whether the residents even KNEW about it.
    There is no explanation as to whether, if the residents knew about the increase on their electric bill-- If they knew What it was to cover.
     

Share This Page