No Fee Paid -- No fire department help

[LuciferSam]

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.

 

[scooterbug44]

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.

 

[LuciferSam]

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.

 

[Matt J]

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.

 

[LuciferSam]

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

It was a voluntary tax.

 

[futurebeachbum]

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.

 

[LuciferSam]

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.

 

[GoodWitch58]

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.

 

[Zebraspots]

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?

 

[beachmouse]

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