For-pay fire department lets man's house burn

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/news/libertarianism/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/10/04/libertarian_fire_department

For-pay fire department lets man's house burn
By Alex Pareene


There is a sort of childish taunt that liberals use against proper libertarians sometimes, in which they humorously propose that the fire department be privatized, because the "invisible hand" of the market would be more efficient at putting out house fires. And then everyone has a laugh -- the liberals because they think they just scored a really great rhetorical point, and the libertarians because they are high.

Meanwhile, out in Tennessee, a man's house burned down because he didn't pay the fire department.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
<...>
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

So some self-interested rational actor decided not to pay for fire protection -- an optional service -- and then his house burned down, because the firefighters obviously didn't want to open the firefighting program up to a bunch of free riders.

Daniel Foster, The Corner's resident hip libertarian-leaning conservative, is rightly appalled by this entire story. He has no problem with opt-in government, of course! It's just that he has this crazy notion that the firefighters had a moral responsibility to stop a man's house from burning down, especially after they responded to his neighbor. And, come on, the guy offered to pay! So no moral hazard!

A-ha, a reader responds. He "offered." But he is clearly a deadbeat, and a leech on society, and the firefighters were right to watch as everything he owned became ash.

UPDATE: A reader writes:

Yes, he offered to pay, while his house burned. I can’t prove what would have happened, but the FD would probably have had to sue him to gain full reimbursement. Maybe they need to start carrying pre-printed contracts for the homeowners to sign quickly and obligate themselves for the full cost plus a little profit.

A man whose house is on fire will say anything to a guy with the means to put the fire out -- best not to trust him, unless you can get it in writing.

I sometimes feel bad for smart, principled conservative bloggers, because the only people worse than their peers are their readers.

[merqz]

1. I don't feel for the homeowner AT ALL

His jurisdiction doesn't have a fire dept., so they were given the option of paying $75 a year for fire protection from the city. He made the CHOICE not to pay that, and he has nobody to blame but himself.

Otoh, Maritime law has an analog to this where by LAW tug operators are entitled to certain fee rates when they tow a vehicle in distress. A law could be passed in the county setting up such a system. The greater one's freedom of choice, the greater one's personal responsibility. Fire is one of those exceptionally rare events for a homeowner, but exceptionally costly IF it occurs. It is insane then, not to have fire insurance. It's the black swan for homeowners. People who fail to prepare for black swans ... well...

It's also ironic to note that the homeowner was the one who started the fire (in his own burn barrels) and then it got out of control.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Fuck that noise

He pays PROPERTY TAXES, doesn't he? And he gets POLICE PROTECTION or an EMERGENCY AMBULANCE when he calls 911, doesn't he?

So WHY can't he get a firetruck when he calls 911? Does he have to pay a "surcharge" if his wife is being stabbed? Will the cops just "watch as she dies"?

Fuck! An emergency is an emergency. Your fucking HOUSE ON FIRE QUALIFIES AS AN EMERGENCY.

I give up. Americans will lie down for ANYTHING that fucks them up, royally. ANYTHING.

[merqz]

17. What a non-responsive bunch of silliness

His prop tax doesn't pay for fire... he had a choice ... he made a selfish, stupid, arrogant one. He KNEW the potential cost. He ignored it.

[Canuckistanian]

38. My God

Have people ALWAYS paid "protection money" to their local governments for fire protection? I'm sure your grandfather didn't.

THIS is how you get people to accept privatization of ALL government services.

And the conservatives win ANOTHER ONE.

[merqz]

39. SOMEBODY has to pay them

Most jurisdictions take the pay out of taxes. I prefer that method. I DON'T LIKE PRIVATIZED FIRE PROTECTION. Unfortunately, this man's jurisdiction DOES NOT HAVE A FD. So, the city offers to cover them for a fee. THat is a suboptimal system imo, but GIVEN that system, the burden is on HIM to pay for it.

I don't support this system. I work in Fire Safety myself. I am paid for through tax dollars, not voluntary fees. Good for me. But GIVEN this system, the burden HAS to be on the homeowner to pay it OR there is no incentive to pay it and the city then has to pay for county resident's fire protection, which is profoundly unfair to them

[Canuckistanian]

47. I'm not blaming you or anyone else here

I'm just..... flabbergasted that people didn't FIGHT LIKE HELL to prevent this kind of a situation from happening.

Nobody, trust me, NOBODY in Canada has EVER gotten notice from their local government that they had to PAY a separate FEE just to get the fire dept. out to their home.

These people should have been storming their local county buildings with torches and pitchforks as soon as it happened.

[TwilightGardener]

56. Then bill the man. He would have gladly paid then, I'm sure. Unless you think it's also OK

for an emergency room doctor to refuse to treat a trauma victim because he didn't arrange payment beforehand or have lots of cash in the wallet. Fire is a public safety problem, and allowing it to grow and spread is irresponsible, no matter who paid which fee. The firefighters in question may not have had the skills or manpower to deal with an especially fast-spreading fire, windy conditions, propane and natural gas lines and tanks, etc.

[KittyWampus]

71. Anybody would gladly pay a fee if their house is on fire. Guess what? The fire dept needs funding

all year round.

As for this attempt to compare this to health insurance-

THIS IS WHY EVERYONE IS REQUIRED TO BE INSURED. If we were allowed to opt out, too many people would only buy insurance it if they became ill.

Remember?

[TwilightGardener]

73. Whichever entity is in charge of collecting that 75$ can certainly do so

after the event--in fact, they can assess a very punitive/lucrative fee for not having paid in advance, which would be quite the example. Same as getting health care services out of pocket tends to result in a much more expensive bill than being part of a prepaid group insurance plan--and mandatory insurance isn't going to cover absolutely everyone who needs unplanned health care, anyway--there will still be foreigners, illegals, people who fall through the cracks in this country. Public health, safety and welfare always must be taken care of, and fire is a real threat. I'd be livid as a neighbor, because that wind can shift on a dime, or dry grass can go up like tinder, and pines can become torches, and this dinky little fire company may not have the control over the situation that they think they have. (edit to add: westerners like myself have a different attitude about this)

[MadMaddie]

45. So believe it or not in the early 1900's this is how the fire departments

worked. This is what the Libertarians and the Republicans want to take the country back to. That's why we pay taxes for these services.

I wonder if the fire department would have stayed outside watching the fire if there were a human inside?

I see many blaming the guy, so are they only allowed to pay once a year? They could have billed him for the service anything than standing idly by. I hope they all recieve a taste of their own selfishness in their futures.

Something is wrong in this country when people stand by and actively refuse to help a neighbor.

[hobbit709]

20. He doesn't pay CITY taxes and it was the CITY FD.

Maybe he should it take it up with the COUNTY gov. and ask them why they can't give him a fire department

[JustAmused]

78. Did you read the article?

The fire department is from the city and is supported by city taxes. So no, he didn't pay taxes for this service. In fact, his county voted down an opportunity to implement a tax for this purpose. Should I call another city or county for my emergency services? The city offered to cover the county, for a fee....help in funding the city fire dept. for that coverage. The county voted it down. The city then offered individuals a chance to do what the county officials would not.

So your points are not founded on facts.
Yes he paid property taxes to the county, but this not a county fire department.
Yes he probably does get police and ambulance service, from the county and his taxes pay for that.

[HughMoran]

31. Dead animals and you support that killing?

The fire department was there anyway protecting his neighbors house.

You can't possibly be a liberal with that attitude.

[pepperbear]

34. you winged your hair in high school, didn't you?

[Greyhound]

2. You must have missed the flame-fest over this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9245518&mesg_id=9247269
:kick: & R

[davidinalameda]

3. I'm really torn on this

there's no reason why they didn't pay the fee except they didn't want to

but I can't imagine a fire department just letting a home burn

[Obamanaut]

4. He made a $75 bet that he would not need fire protection, and he lost. nt

[Systematic Chaos]

5. Simple way to handle non-payers.

If they should end up needing service, bill them for all unpaid years plus a fine of some multiple of that unpaid amount. That multiple could even be based upon the relative appraised value of the property compared to other lots in the jurisdiction. If it's a poor area, tack on 50%. If it's a wealthy subdivision in the top 10%, quintuple the fine or even multiply it by 10. $750 per unpaid year would still be a drop in the bucket for the more wealthy citizens. At least that makes it a progressive sort of tax, and while it will still hit the wallets of lower incomes hard, it's better than losing everything.

:shrug:

[taterguy]

9. How do you collect from someone that's just lost everything?

:shrug: X 2!

[Systematic Chaos]

13. If the entire home ends up destroyed, then yes there is a problem.

I'm not saying I support the policy. Truthfully I think it's disgusting.

But, if a jurisdiction has that sort of policy in effect, and the residents are aware of this, then all I'm saying is that collecting some kind of modest fee after the fact is preferable to allowing someone to "lose everything."

There's no easy answer other than to do what a poster below said. Incorporate the fee into county taxes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. It never ceases to amaze me that even DU'ers share these

libertarina views.

Reality is that the name FIRE COMPANY comes from well COMPANIES. We are quickly going back to what horrified Franklin so much and led to the FIRST PUBLIC (with taxes) fire departments.

It is far easier to just assess the 75 in the TAXES we all pay... but whatever.

I guess left wing libertarians can be as dickish as right wing libertarians.

[Fumesucker]

7. The city has no means of enforcing taxation outside its borders..

And that is where the home in question was, outside the borders of the city.

Should the residents of the city pay extra taxes to provide fire protection for everyone in the part of the county outside of the city?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. That is where COUNTY taxes come in

for rural areas. That's one way this county deals with it.

[Fumesucker]

12. The county has no FD..

And apparently that's the way either the voters or the politicians (or more likely both) in the county prefer it.

I'd be willing to bet that the homeowner in this case voted against having a county FD (either directly or indirectly through his choice of representative).

I live in a similar sort of county (although we do suprisingly have a county FD) and if the stupid actually burned a lot more often and painfully we'd be a lot better off.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Neither does this county

it goes into the county fire protection fund. That helps volunteer rural districts to keep a few on staff fire fighters.

It also allows for more distant CITY firefighters to fund the response into rural areas. This includes life flight.

There are ways around it. But I am sure that county don't want to do the work, 'cause libertarian way of doing things is much better.

Of course here we also do that 'cause well shit, santa ana fires will have them damn rural fires in our back yards very, and i mean this, VERY FAST. So we kind of get it. We are all in the same hole. And trust me, at times it is tempting hearing some of the folks in rural areas complain' bout that damn assessment until well, shit here comes the big city fire department to the rescue. AGAIN.

[Fumesucker]

19. You'd have to live in the South to understand the mindset here..

Unfortunately for my peace of mind I know all too well how Southerners think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Well that is one reason

the country will break at the fall of Empire.

And quite frankly I cannot wait to live in a more rational country with less dominance of the bible belt or other areas of the country, quite frankly. And no, I ain't moving to the south. You could not pay me enough. And yes I understand the thinking... damn Borderer thinking... leave me the fuck alone... goes back to at least the sixteen century, well before Gilbert and company started colonization.

[WolverineDG]

16. If the county assessed a fee for fire protection, but still required him to pay a fee for it

THAT is libertarian & I would take issue with that.

But that is not the situation in this case. The city can only tax the property of residents & businesses that are within its jurisdiction. It cannot levy or enforce taxes on property outside of it. In order to provide protection, the city & county came up with this agreement & somehow arrived at the $75/yr fee, as it is only fair to spread the costs over everyone who wants or is otherwise entitled to fire protection. To make sure that everyone knows (& pays), the city sends out numerous reminders, phone calls, face-to-face contact.

dg

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. This is how civilized places handle this

that 75 \year dollar fee is rolled into your taxes. Is that hard to understand?

I know our local rural wingnuts scream and cry every year, that is RIGHT UNTIL those urban fire trucks roll in for the customary Santa Ana driven fires.

[WolverineDG]

48. yes but this particular county commission decided NOT to do that

for whatever reason. And I may be going out on a limb here, but I do believe the commissioners are elected by people like Mr. Cranick who probably don't want to pay more taxes & were quite happy to skip out on the $75/yr fee. Well, until now.

dg

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Apparently he forgot to send the money in

and as I said in 'nother thread, things like this reveal the very deep chasm, cultural and otherwise, in this country. We will not survive the fall from Empire as one nation, and at this point I can't wait for that to happen.

[ManiacJoe]

8. If you want the services, then pay your taxes.

In this case the owner opted out of the flat-rate fee/tax to cover the service from the near by town. Fire departments are expensive to run and equip.

[HughMoran]

28. You're sticking up for having the fire department watch his house burn down

While watering the fence to protect his neighbor. It's not like they weren't there.

Are you really that heartless?

[Fumesucker]

33. Read the thread...

It would quite possibly set a precedent that would oblige the FD to fight every fire in the county without getting paid to do so..

And the Wingnuts in the county would purely love to get fire protection without having to pay for the service, this is rural Tennessee you're talking about, I'm only one state over and I know these people well.

The firefighters I know love their job and would be heartbroken to watch a fire without fighting it, there's more to this than meets the eye at first glance.

[ManiacJoe]

52. Houses can be replaced.

It has nothing to do with being heartless. The owner made a bad decision and paid the consequences. I bet he pays the $75 next year.

Had I been his neighbor, I would have helped him fight the fire with garden hoses. But I do not blame the fire department for the owner's bad judgment.

[HughMoran]

54. Can his dogs be replaced? His cat? What if a human was in there?

There's no forgiving your heartlessness - today you made a choice. You chose poorly.

[ManiacJoe]

58. The fire department would rescue the people for free.

... according to the fire department.

You can call it "choosing poorly" if you want, but my taxes are paid so my fire/police/medic responses are covered.

[HughMoran]

61. Enjoy your right-wing libertarian government. Support privatized schools too?

:eyes:

[ManiacJoe]

63. I support their right to exist.

However, I have no kids in any privitized schools.

I live in Seattle. I cannot even see "right-wing libertarian government" if I stand on my roof for added height.
:shrug:

[HughMoran]

66. So you could give a crap about people who don't live in liberal areas

Very compassionate.

:eyes:

[ManiacJoe]

69. Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion based on my post.

Feel free to ask questions since you are confused.

[HughMoran]

77. Oh, it's crystal clear

Today is a day that I learned unforgettable characteristics about a half-dozen or so people.

I will ever forget what I learned today.

[KittyWampus]

57. And the Fire Department puts out the fire and next NO ONE pays the fee. Cause that's how humans are.

What's the point in paying the money if the fire dept can be relied on to show up anyway?

[HughMoran]

62. His dogs and a cat are DEAD!!

Dead.

Could have been a human.

Please tell me you don't care more about money that somebody's lifelong memories, including the good times with his pets.

Please?

Otherwise I'm going to :puke:

[KittyWampus]

68. this sort of story has been posted before. Fire departments would save a human.

As for the animals, they are the victims of a foolish owner.

[HughMoran]

72. Heartless

No civilized society should allow this to happen.

This isn't the 19th century any more.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

11. Someone alert PETA

The (former)homeowner is on Keith Olbermann's show right now. Apparently this fascist Randian fire department let three dogs and a cat burn up in this fire, and they have previously let barns burn down with horses inside.

Some day, these so called firefighters will be faced with a fire they will never be able to put out. Trust Me, they're taking the express train to Hell :grr:

[SargeUNN]

18. Wow is this DU or New Republic?

First how many heard the interview and paid full attention? Secondly, doesn't it dawn on you that this privatizing something that WE LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES totally oppose? Do you understand that he OFFERED to pay but was refused? Come on folks get your shit together or go on over the dark side boards with your cold hearted crap.

[KansasVoter]

22. When did he offer to pay???

[SargeUNN]

24. He told them he would pay whatever they asked

but they said he wasn't on the list so it didn't matter.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

30. He said he forgot to pay

Should his house burn to the ground.

Is today Republican day on DU?

[SargeUNN]

35. let's hope you never are in this type thing

Since you live in Kansas (we know the reputation of your state) I would bet you could be one day. Secondly you are the one that is clueless because now the insurance company, if they follow up and pay off as they said, will pay out a hell of a lot more than $75. Thirdly, animals died and some how I doubt they really knew of the fee, fourthly, if you ever lived next to a house that burned you would know it does linger in smell in your house. You really must be at the wrong board, the New Republic is >>>>>>>>>>>

[KansasVoter]

37. So what if no one paid in the city? Still cover them?

[Fumesucker]

29. There are probably legal ramifications and consequences if they did that..

Legal precedent can be a strange thing, the FD would be setting a precedent that could well have them fighting every fire in the county without benefit of payment if they were to do that.

[Fumesucker]

23. I suspect there are legal ramifications if the FD were to extinguish the fire without the fee...

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that the city would end up being obligated to fight every fire in the whole county without any recompense if they were to break their policy.

I don't _like_ what happened but I can understand why the FD did what it did..

[hobbit709]

25. When you live outside a city limits

Who do you call for police, the city PD or the county sheriff?
If the county doesn't want to even fund volunteer fire departments, why should the city be required to do so?

[ManiacJoe]

55. What privatizing?!?!?

The county has no fire department and contracted with the near-by cities for their services. The cities fund their fire department by taxes. The county has its non-city residents pay a similar fee to the city for the extended coverage by the city. There is no free lunch here, and fire departments are very expensive to run and equip.

[JustAmused]

79. Read the article please

This is not a privatized fire department !

Tell you what. Next time you need any emergency services, call the next town over and see if they will come out.

[lynne]

21. Most homeowners policies will pay for Fire Dept fees for service -

- so the Fire Dept. might have received the fee from the insurance co. as part of the fire loss settlement. I'm curious as to what will happen now. The homeowners insurance will now have a total loss to pay instead of a partial loss as the FD wouldn't respond due to the non-payment of the fee. The insurance company is going to want their pound of flesh and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't subrogate against the Fire Department. If they can find any evidence of the FD accepting fee payment at the time of another fire yet refusing the same for this guy, or ever assisting anyone who had not paid the fee, then the FD is toast. No pun intended.

[Fumesucker]

26. I just made the same point from the opposite direction..

The FD probably knows full well that if they extinguish one fire that is not "subscribed" they'll end up liable for every fire in the county without getting paid..

And you can bet your ass that the county will take full advantage of it, that's the way Winguts roll.

[Pithlet]

51. Yep. They put out that fire, next to no one pays the 75 dollar fee.

Even if they sue him or put liens on or whatever. People don't bank on the fact that it will happen to them. They'll just see that the house was saved and that is all that will matter. And the city department will have to have the extra equipment and resources for the county without the extra funding. In fact I do believe they tried billing after they fought fired, but had trouble collecting. It just didn't work. As harsh as the decision was, they were driven to it by the county's decision not to pitch in their fair share.

[AlabamaLibrul]

36. The previous fire chief had simply asked for payment the day after services rendered.

I can't believe anyone on here sees it as better that a house burn down than to simply bill the guy for the whole $75.

[firedupdem]

40. Wow...

That is sick. They are at the neighbors house hosing it down but allowed this man's house to burn?! Unbelievable! Down right hateful! There is no defending this.

[RobinA]

41. The Attitudes Here

amaze me. Man bleeding profusely goes to ER. ER says, Show me your insurance. Man says, Sorry, never got around to applying for medical assistance. Hospital says, Sorry pal, no pay no service.

Would the reaction here be the same? I think not. When the fire department stands around and watches a house burn down due to non-payment we're talking the end of civilization. And don't tell me there's no way of getting the FD paid without voluntary fees. I live in a no-police department burg and the Staties are paid to patrol. I live on the edge and when the motorcyclist attempted to smear himself all over the road in front of our house, the police from the neighboring township were the first ones there. And they didn't sit there and watch him writhe in the middle of the street for lack of payment. This is just disgusting.

[klook]

44. Agreed.

After reading far too many posts on this topic today, yours strikes me as the best blend of rational, caring, and outraged. Your reaction mirrors mine, and you expressed it well.

[Canuckistanian]

49. Thank you

You restore my confidence in humanity. I thought I was going crazy trying to make it understood that this situation was MADNESS.

[KittyWampus]

59. Oh , please. The system was already in place. What's disgusting are DU'ers who can't seem to deal

with reality.

If the system is- pay the fire department fee YOU PAY IT.

And if you don't pay it, the fire department can't put out the fire in your house because if they did NO ONE would pay.

See how simple that is?

Don't like the system? Change it. Can't change it? Don't live there.

I live where the fire dept. is volunteer. Except there are so many summer people who own weekend houses here, there's not enough locals left to man the fire department. We'll probably have to go to professional fire fighters at some point in the future.

[Drunken Irishman]

76. The reality is amazing, isn't it?

And that reality is we have some truly disgusting individuals in this society that would rather watch a man's house burn down over a lousy $75 than step in and do what is right.

What's more appalling is that so many people on DU share this attitude.

It's a good thing our police don't offer up this kind of protection, eh?

[JTFrog]

80. As a former volunteer fireman,

I have to agree wholeheartedly with your post.

I just can't wrap my head around this libertarian horseshit.

[flvegan]

42. The situation sucks, and here's what should have been done...

If one chooses to not pay the subscription fee, they're on their own. *BUT* should the need arise, they can call the FD and the FD should put the fire out as best they can. As a moral and professional responsibility.

Then they should place a lien on the property for the full cost of putting the fire out.

[ManiacJoe]

60. Thank you for posting a workable solution.

Far too many folks forget about the "constructive" part of "constructive criticism".

[Contrary1]

46. From what I read, the guy he made the offer to wasn't authorized to ok it...

Perhaps the Fire Dept. should carry contracts with them. Otherwise, the promise to pay wouldn't have been enforcible. Under duress and all that. Hell, maybe even a signed contract wouldn't have been binding, under the circumstances.

Mr. Cranick was burning trash in two barrels. All of this could have been avoided had he put a metal grate on top of them.

[backscatter712]

53. Y'know, I'm really tempted to support that guy that cold-cocked the fire chief.

I know we're not supposed to support violence, but damn, that guy tests me...

[flamingdem]

64. Me too! What happened to being neighborly, this makes me sick! I hope people can send him $ nt

[WeekendWarrior]

65. so my question is,

if he didn't pay, why did they bother to come out at all? Just to rub it in?

[ManiacJoe]

67. They came out to protect the neighbor's house...

... since the fire was spreading. (The neighbor paid the yearly fee.)

[WeekendWarrior]

70. Okay, that makes sense, but

in the video I saw it didn't look like he had any neighbors close enough to be concerned about.

Whatever the case, I think it's bullshit. You don't sit and watch a house burn down. That's just wrong.

[Drunken Irishman]

74. This thread is truly amazing.

[Drunken Irishman]

75. Sorry, I meant disturbing. Truly disturbing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. Blame the state, not the fire company.

That a for-profit company refuses to do something that isn't its job is bad, given that there were so many more sensible alternatives (an on-the-spot fee option being the obvious one), but ultimately it's not their responsibility.

That the state is not providing basic emergency services is unforgiveable.

[CBR]

82. Some people on here are sick fucks. nt