No Fee Paid -- No fire department help

I sense Mr. Cranick has finally learned a very valuable life lesson. This really has nothing to do with community, it's about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions.

Frankly I'm not shedding a tear. Luckily for the less/no government folks the federal government works differently and you get the service whether you have paid or not.

It's nothing new. We lived in that area in the 90s (next county to the east from there) and I can remember being told about the no fee=they'll let your house burn down policy when we were applying for renter's insurance in 1996.

I sense Mr. Cranick has finally learned a very valuable life lesson. This really has nothing to do with community, it's about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions.

Seriously? Is this what conservatives want for America?

I sense Mr. Cranick has finally learned a very valuable life lesson. This really has nothing to do with community, it's about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions.

I find it hard to realize that you and some others share this feeling. The family's dog and cat perished in the fire...as the man stood offering to pay any amount to save them and his home. He said he had forgotten to pay the fee.

I am glad that I live in a community that would not let this happen; and that I surround myself with people who show more compassion for their felllow humans and the animals.

The fire started around a burn barrel and took an hour to finally spread to the house. The firefighters could have easily put out the fire sparing the mans house. I think there is a big moral difference between saving a mans home that has yet to ignite and declining to put out a housefire already in progress. Utterly ridiculous and disgusting.

? la carte government in action.

Your house is burning but you're poor or you forgot to pay a fee, eff you.

Your child is dying but you're poor and/or have no medical insurance, eff you.

Your family is being murdered but you're poor and/or didn't pay for protection, eff you.

You need help from your representative but you're too poor to contribute your share of the payoff, eff you.

I am speechless........This is a horrible example of selective protection of the health, safety and welfare of a community. That taxation method should be outlawed and the firefighters should be prosecuted.

I think it's a terrible policy, but I am wondering why they didn't pay for the service. It appears that they knew about it from this line in the story...

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick."

Also, here is the follow-up story. It looks like the owners lived in an unincorporated area of the County where there isn't fire service unless you sign up with the service with city's within the county.

More fallout following house fire | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | Local

Something tells me that in the future the county government will make residents pay for the subscription service whether they want it or not.

Seriously? Is this what conservatives want for America?

I'm libertarian. I think the important point here is that if a community wishes to run things this way, they have every right to do so. Mr. Cranick chose to live in this community, he knew the rules, and he neglected to pay his bills. So his house burned down. If he feels he's been wronged he can seek redress through the courts.

I find it hard to realize that you and some others share this feeling. The family's dog and cat perished in the fire...as the man stood offering to pay any amount to save them and his home. He said he had forgotten to pay the fee.

I am glad that I live in a community that would not let this happen; and that I surround myself with people who show more compassion for their felllow humans and the animals.

I am too, I wouldn't live in a community like Mr. Cranick's. I have no issue with taxing people to pay for basic services like fire service.

As far as the pets go, that's unfortunate. Local police should consider citing Mr. Cranick with animal abuse. After all he's the one who was keeping his pets locked up in an unsafe area.

Failure to prevent the house from initially igniting and then allowing it to burn to the ground when you are there already with all the proper equipment over a 75 dollar fee is morally and ethically bankrupt. If you don't see a problem with this, I an glad you are not my neighbor.

I don't think letting someone's house burn down is okay - but on the flip side, if the fire department puts out fires for free, there wouldn't be a fire department.

Human life trumps all - so this fire department has a policy that no matter if you paid the fee or not, they will still save you - just not your property.

I know Scooterbro's fire department is constantly frustrated because people won't implement basic fire safety practices, build in an area w/ high fire danger, nickel and dime funding for the fire department, and then they pitch a fit if the fire department exhausts itself and has to draw the line at only saving lives.

It's not like he forgot. He never paid the 75 bucks; therefore, he made his bed and was forced to lie in it. He lived in an unincorporated area that did not have a fire service. If a person wanted fire department protection, they had to pay for it. He chose not to.

Real smart, just let fires burn and perhaps spread to other houses and wooded areas.

Failure to prevent the house from initially igniting and then allowing it to burn to the ground when you are there already with all the proper equipment over a 75 dollar fee is morally and ethically bankrupt. If you don't see a problem with this, I an glad you are not my neighbor.

I am not sure that is what happened. As I understood the article I read, they responded after the fire was spreading to a home that did pay. As for the morals and ethics of the situation, it seems to me you have an issue with the politician who sets the rules not the Firefighter who has to abide by them.

Real smart, just let fires burn and perhaps spread to other houses and wooded areas.

No...the fire department dutifully protected the homes that were threatened. Those home had paid their 75 bucks.

Before anybody says "I don't pay for fire services"...well you do. They are called property taxes. The difference is that most people do not have a choice. This guy had a choice, and he made very unwise one.

Real smart, just let fires burn and perhaps spread to other houses and wooded areas.

That's what the city FD came out to prevent.

The homeowner's next-door-neighbor felt like the $75 payment to the city was a good investment and made it. In return, they came to protect his home.

If no one around him had paid the $75, then they wouldn't have rolled. Most municipalities don't feel an obligation to cover problems that occur in other territories.

When I was a kid, folks out in the county could pay a fee to have their kids attend the city school system. Those who chose not to pay sent their kids to county schools. I don't recall people complaining that their kids couldn't go to city schools for free.

This city is extending a courtesy to county residents for a minimal fee (since the county has chosen to not fund an FD of its own.) They have real costs associated with fighting fires out in the county where there are no hydrants.

Now they are being criticized for not providing services to people who don't live in the city and who have chosen to not pay for the city's help. This is like complaining that the new auto policy you bought today, won't cover you for the accident you had last week. No one in their right mind would sell such a policy..why should the city. If they started letting people pay after a fire, then the only fees they'd collect would be those paid during the fire.

No...the fire department dutifully protected the homes that were threatened. Those home had paid their 75 bucks.

Before anybody says "I don't pay for fire services"...well you do. They are called property taxes. The difference is that most people do not have a choice. This guy had a choice, and he made very unwise one.

You have to question if a portion of Mr. Cranick's county property taxes might have been used to pay for any of the city's fire fighting equipment.

No...the fire department dutifully protected the homes that were threatened. Those home had paid their 75 bucks.

Before anybody says "I don't pay for fire services"...well you do. They are called property taxes. The difference is that most people do not have a choice. This guy had a choice, and he made very unwise one.

Yeah right, I guess it would have been too dutiful to put out the fire at the source. Give me a break. It doesn't take much imagination to see that a small house fire could all of a sudden erupt into an explosive fireball destroying lives and large amounts of property in an instant. Their firefighting tactics fall into the category of reckless endangerment.

I might also add, think of the wasted manpower as firefighters stand around with their hoses up their asses "protecting" neighbors' homes as they watch the source of the fire burn out. How would you like to be the neighbor, knowing that the firefighers won't do a damn thing until the actual fire, not merely the threat, extends over some property line? Sounds like some of you posting on this thread would want to call in a surveyor to determine where that line is.

You have to question if a portion of Mr. Cranick's county property taxes might have been used to pay for any of the city's fire fighting equipment.

Following that thought to its logical conclusion would be to also question if any state or federal grants were used by the city FD? If so, then some some of his state use taxes or federal income taxes might also have been used to pay for some of them.

Would that somehow entitle him to the protection he didn't want to pay for?

Something tells me that in the future the county government will make residents pay for the subscription service whether they want it or not.

Or another simple solution would for the City to stop offering this service outside the boundaries of its franchise. Then controversies such as this won't happen.

Following that thought to its logical conclusion would be to also question if any state or federal grants were used by the city FD? If so, then some some of his state use taxes or federal income taxes might also have been used to pay for some of them.

Would that somehow entitle him to the protection he didn't want to pay for?

I didn't read where "he didn't want to pay for protection" but maybe you know him better than I do.

Fire protection, like police protection is a public service regardless of the means used to acquire funding. This privatized means of collecting money for such services is without a doubt legally and morally wrong in my opinion. If this fire department is in any way connected with state or local government any way then I would say they have a legal obligation to indiscriminately provide public services. If they don't provide such services this is akin to the police standing around watching you and your family getting raped and bludgeoned to death.

You have to question if a portion of Mr. Cranick's county property taxes might have been used to pay for any of the city's fire fighting equipment.

He lived in an area outside of South Fulton's city limits that did not have a fire department. As a courtesy, the city of South Fulton offers to provide fire department coverage to those who pay a fee for it. They pay a fee because they are not in the City of South Fulton's tax base. The fire fee policy is 20 years old. The only debate in this is whether he forgot to pay the fee or just didn't do it. I've seen it reported both ways.

It's not that tough folks. Go out there and find the articles rather than getting your info from the snippets here. It's very cut and dry.

Cut and dry, though, has no bearing on whether or not it sux. Does it? Sure.