No Fee Paid -- No fire department help

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.

Please see my previous post about it sucking. Yeah, it sucks, but it's not new. It's a 20 year old policy for Pete's sake. Nobody has an issue with it until somebody gets burned by it (no pun intended).
That's just a tad hypocritical isn't it?

I can guarantee you nobody will forget their 75 dollar fee next year!

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.

No it's not cut and dry. There is huge room for disagreement onb this issue from both a legal and moral standpoint, and I think you are dead wrong and haven't given this issue much thought.

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.

So riddle me this, Batman. If I live in Cobb Co. GA, and the county line for Fulton Co. is on the other side of the street, who is going to get the call if I dial 911? There may be a City of Atlanta cop three doors down sitting in his car eating a donut, but Cobb Co. is going to get that call. Not the cop eating the donut. How is this any different except one municipality has a fire department and the other does not?

No it's not cut and dry. There is huge room for disagreement onb this issue from both a legal and moral standpoint, and I think you are dead wrong and haven't given this issue much thought.

There's no legal standpoint. That's the only argument I'm making. Morally, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, but legally, it's another story.

Morally, it's reprehensible that a whacked Imam wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Legally, there's nothing wrong with it.

The two don't go hand in hand. You have to separate them.

I disagree - the fire department will save you or your family even if you don't pay the fee - it's your property that is SOL.

I lived in the country 13 miles from the nearest town for 21 years and never had a problem with loose fires. I used an outside burn barrel for trash, which is what it looks like is where this fire started. Unless they had a wood pile or lumber or additional buildings, why would it take two hours for the fire to spread to the home that the homeowners couldn't put it out. Maybe it was just that far away from the home, I don't know, but it didn't add up.

I read both stories and watched both videos. I never saw anywhere where it was stated that the homeowner "forgot" to pay his fee. I believe they "chose" not to pay and therefore accepted the potential consequences of their choice. Like any other service, if you "forget" to pay, you get reminders. These folks chose this destiny.

Likewise, I never saw anything in the stories available about pets going up in the fire. If it took two hours to get from the barrels to the home, was there not time somewhere in there to get those pets. The pets did not belong to the city, county or fire department. I don't think the well being of the pets was a priority to the owners. Glenda, where'd you get information about pets in the fire?

This whole story wreaks of he said, she said and way too much ego and it's just sad that it has to have happened at all and that it's being used to further divide otherwise very caring people.

So riddle me this, Batman. If I live in Cobb Co. GA, and the county line for Fulton Co. is on the other side of the street, who is going to get the call if I dial 911? There may be a City of Atlanta cop three doors down sitting in his car eating a donut, but Cobb Co. is going to get that call. Not the cop eating the donut. How is this any different except one municipality has a fire department and the other does not?

If the cop eating the donut knows about the situation (like if he witnesses a life threatening crime in another county, he should be on it. The flaw in your argument is that the fire department 20 mile away did get the call, so they knew about. I've lived in states where they had enough common sense to disregard some of these idiotic bureaucratic formalities in the event of an emergency. This is just another example of the rigid authoritarian line in the sand attitude that drags our great country down.

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

All I've seen in print is that they didn't pay. No reason, other than "I forgot" has been offered.

I would suspect that if I had forgotten to pay for my homeowners insurance and had it destroyed by some event that people wouldn't clamor for the insurance company to accept payment after the fact and bail me out.

That being said, there are 2 reasonable solutions to this in the future. One would be for the county to strike a deal with the city and mandate payment of the fees. (Homeowner to county and then county to city so the county deals with non-paying homeowners.) The other and simplest solution is for the city to discontinue this service. Be hard to have controversies such as this if the city just didn't go outside of their territory.

All I've seen in print is that they didn't pay. No reason, other than "I forgot" has been offered.

I would suspect that if I had forgotten to pay for my homeowners insurance and had it destroyed by some event that people wouldn't clamor for the insurance company to accept payment after the fact and bail me out.

That being said, there are 2 reasonable solutions to this in the future. One would be for the county to strike a deal with the city and mandate payment of the fees. (Homeowner to county and then county to city so the county deals with non-paying homeowners.) The other and simplest solution is for the city to discontinue this service. Be hard to have controversies such as this if the city just didn't go outside of their territory.

This isn't insurance, which is compensation for disaster after the fact. This is about a man who didn't pay his fee for emergency services that properly fall within the bounds of civil protection, which are the proper function of government. In my opinion, the $75.00 was really a tax, albeit a voluntary one, that compensated the fire department for services to the public. It is improper in my mind for a municipality to provide anything but public services. He may have elected not to pay his tax, but as I said, it was voluntary. The solution in the future is to make this tax mandatory.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So riddle me this, Batman. If I live in Cobb Co. GA, and the county line for Fulton Co. is on the other side of the street, who is going to get the call if I dial 911? There may be a City of Atlanta cop three doors down sitting in his car eating a donut, but Cobb Co. is going to get that call. Not the cop eating the donut. How is this any different except one municipality has a fire department and the other does not?

I would love to see the look on your face as you're driving through Fulton County on vacation when your car suddenly catches fire with your family trapped and 911 tells you they won't respond because you're not on the list.

The municipality provides public services - he lived outside that municipality and so had the OPTION of paying for services.

He intentionally didn't pay to have the fire department put out fires on his property.

So they didn't.

All of the scenarios people keep putting forward do not apply - because if someone's life is in danger the fire department will still act - regardless of payment.

I would love to see the look on your face as you're driving through Fulton County on vacation when your car suddenly catches fire with your family trapped and 911 tells you they won't respond because you're not on the list.

That's totally different from being in a county with fire services. Apples to Oranges. Again...it's an unincorporated area with NO fire department. That being said what if your car catches on fire while driving through? Does it apply only to homes? I doubt it. If your car caught on fire driving through there, you'd be SOL I'd wager...

Like I said...I'm making no statements on the absurdness of it all. There's no denying that it's bat sheet stooopid. It is.
I'm only adding commentary regarding the black and white areas of the legality. Id' be amazed if this was the first time this has happened. If it is, though, I bet South Fulton had a bunch of people show up with 75 bucks the past few days...

That's totally different from being in a county with fire services. Apples to Oranges. Again...it's an unincorporated area with NO fire department. That being said what if your car catches on fire while driving through? Does it apply only to homes? I doubt it. If your car caught on fire driving through there, you'd be SOL I'd wager...

Like I said...I'm making no statements on the absurdness of it all. There's no denying that it's bat sheet stooopid. It is.
I'm only adding commentary regarding the black and white areas of the legality. Id' be amazed if this was the first time this has happened. If it is, though, I bet South Fulton had a bunch of people show up with 75 bucks the past few days...

I'm talking about you and your car in anywhere USA. According to your logic no one should expect protection unless they have paid for it.

The municipality provides public services - he lived outside that municipality and so had the OPTION of paying for services.

He intentionally didn't pay to have the fire department put out fires on his property.

So they didn't.

All of the scenarios people keep putting forward do not apply - because if someone's life is in danger the fire department will still act - regardless of payment.

I think there is a huge conflict when you provide public emergency services in one realm, and then privatize them in another. I would think Mr. Cranick has good grounds for a lawsuit. It would be interesting to see if the department has ever provided services to somebody who hasn't paid his fee. Then the the case of the Third World County Fire department would really start to unravel. It's not difficult to imagine such a scenario.

I'm curious, when a fire occurs, is it always clear cut and dry whether somebody's life is in danger? Of course not. Emergency services must act in the interest of the public and protect even those who don't pay their taxes. This was a voluntary tax, nothing more. This is the fault of the municipality for having poor collection methods. This does not relieve this public entity of their duty to indiscrimnately provide public services to the public for the protection of the public. The notion that a city or county would waste one second checking payment records before acting on a public emergency is the height of absurdity.

I don't see why - you either live in the area or you don't. If you live in the area you get the service, if you don't you have the option to pay to get said service extended beyond the boundaries of the area.

For example, my grandparents did not have garbage service because they lived outside the town - so they paid per bag to take their garbage to the nearby town dump.

If someone's life is in danger, they don't stop to check the paperwork - they act.

But if noone's life is in danger, they do not act unless you have paid them to do so.

I don't see why - you either live in the area or you don't. If you live in the area you get the service, if you don't you have the option to pay to get said service extended beyond the boundaries of the area.

For example, my grandparents did not have garbage service because they lived outside the town - so they paid per bag to take their garbage to the nearby town dump.

If someone's life is in danger, they don't stop to check the paperwork - they act.

But if noone's life is in danger, they do not act unless you have paid them to do so.

Protection from fire is a proper function of government. It is a reasonable expectation that this will be provided as a public service. That same cannot be said of garbage pickup, so there is no comparison. I don't recall any immediate life-threatening situations due to lack of garbage pickup.

Anytime there is a fire, it is reasonable to assume that somebody's life could be in danger. It is the duty of a public fire department to try to put out a fire at its source if possible, in order to maximize protection of the public. This service should be provided even if it involves providing service to those who may be delinquent on their taxes. Suppose there were a neighborhood of so-called "non-payees" whose houses were all on fire, with a "payee" in the center of it all. Should the fire department wait until the first sign of fire crosses onto the payee's boundary, oblivious to the fact that the resulting inferno may block access to the payees property? I'm sure you don't think so. Fire knows no boundaries, and neither does proper fire protection in these kinds of situations.

I think there is a huge conflict when you provide public emergency services in one realm, and then privatize them in another. I would think Mr. Cranick has good grounds for a lawsuit. It would be interesting to see if the department has ever provided services to somebody who hasn't paid his fee. Then the the case of the Third World County Fire department would really start to unravel. It's not difficult to imagine such a scenario.

I'm curious, when a fire occurs, is it always clear cut and dry whether somebody's life is in danger? Of course not. Emergency services must act in the interest of the public and protect even those who don't pay their taxes. This was a voluntary tax, nothing more. This is the fault of the municipality for having poor collection methods. This does not relieve this public entity of their duty to indiscrimnately provide public services to the public for the protection of the public. The notion that a city or county would waste one second checking payment records before acting on a public emergency is the height of absurdity.

This was not a tax, it was an optional fee.

This was not a tax, it was an optional fee.

It was a voluntary tax.

The notion that a city or county would waste one second checking payment records before acting on a public emergency is the height of absurdity.

Actually, its pretty common.

My parents home was annexed into the city limits of Asheville NC in 1988. In 1990 their home caught fire. When they called 911, the 911 operator calmly told them that, since they were outside the city limits, AFD couldn't be dispatched. After arguing with them for a bit (including telling them that they were paying property taxes) my parents desperately called the Haw Creek VFD down the road a few miles and they came and fought the fire. HCVFD was a few miles further from their home than the AFD and less well equipped.

If the city had dispatched immediately (and as they should have), the damage done to their home would have been relatively light. As it was, they ended up with several hundred thousand dollars of damage and a home that they couldn't live in for a year.

The city finally acknowledged their error, long after the fact. My parents ended up not being able to sue the city over it because both used the same insurance company and the insurance company basically told my parents that they would take care of everything for them if they didn't sue. (I guess it saved the insurance company all of those pesky legal fees.)

My point though is that 911 operators are very aware of boundaries, who's paid, who hasn't, etc... They aren't always right, but they are aware.

Actually, its pretty common.

My parents home was annexed into the city limits of Asheville NC in 1988. In 1990 their home caught fire. When they called 911, the 911 operator calmly told them that, since they were outside the city limits, AFD couldn't be dispatched. After arguing with them for a bit (including telling them that they were paying property taxes) my parents desperately called the Haw Creek VFD down the road a few miles and they came and fought the fire. HCVFD was a few miles further from their home than the AFD and less well equipped.

If the city had dispatched immediately (and as they should have), the damage done to their home would have been relatively light. As it was, they ended up with several hundred thousand dollars of damage and a home that they couldn't live in for a year.

The city finally acknowledged their error, long after the fact. My parents ended up not being able to sue the city over it because both used the same insurance company and the insurance company basically told my parents that they would take care of everything for them if they didn't sue. (I guess it saved the insurance company all of those pesky legal fees.)

My point though is that 911 operators are very aware of boundaries, who's paid, who hasn't, etc... They aren't always right, but they are aware.

It may be common, but I still think it's the height of absurdity (welcome to Rand Paul's America). I'm trying to make the case that it's improper for a municipality to privatize their services for another municipality with regard to basic functions of civil protection such as police and fire. This amounts to a protection racket. Therefore, I believe this man has a really good case and I'm rooting for him all the way. You would think the city would be smart enough to simply put out fires in these situations simply to avoid lawsuits which in my non-expert opinion, have strong legal basis.

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.

I agree the leadership of that town or city or whatever it is, is responsible. From what I read, some of the firefighters wanted to help, but were forced not to; they apparently are and have been upset by the rules. I wish some of them had had more courage and had done the right thing, but perhaps there are good reasons for their reluctance to do so. It would be interesting to read an interview with one of the fire fighters.

No matter what rule is in place, I would not want to live in a place that would stand by and let fire destroy someone's home and pets--and I would not want people who would do that to be my neighbors either.

The man said he had paid the fee for several years, but this year he forgot.

No matter what political spin one puts on this, it is disgusting behavior by whoever is responsible. This is not how civilized people treat one another, and I think it is just one more example of what a slippery slope we are on with the current attitudes so prevalent in this country right now.

This time it was his dog and cat that burned to death; next time, it could be his son or daughter.

The story has changed as it has gotten more coverage. At first he said he just didn't pay it.

What kind of pet owner has several hours to do so, but doesn't save their pets?

Sadly, companion animals just aren't terribly valued in that part of the country.

http://wpsd.bimedia.net/content/SouthFulton.pdf

International Association of Firefighters Condemn the Decision to let the house burn.