Todd Cranick still not sure he would support tax for fire protection..

[Fumesucker]

This is the mentality that some of us on DU are trying to point out, people whose family have lost a home to fire and *still* don't know whether they would be in favor of a tax supported fire department.

Note that Todd is the son of the older couple whose house just burned.

http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-obion-fire,0,2139336.story

While Todd Cranick is not certain whether he would support a county-wide subscription fee program versus a mandatory tax, he said, "If it's taxed, that covers everybody. Not just the city, not just the county. Everybody will have it."

Read the rest of the story at the link..

Thanks to DUer Pithlet for the link to the story.

[depakid]

1. His actual statement:

While Todd Cranick is not certain whether he would support a county-wide subscription fee program versus a mandatory tax, he said, "If it's taxed, that covers everybody. Not just the city, not just the county. Everybody will have it."
----

Now read this sick individual's statement:

"First, we regret that the Cranick home burned as a result of not paying a rural fire subscription. Second, let me say this tragedy was not the fault of the South Fulton fire department or the city of South Fulton, but rather, it was the failure of the Cranick family not to pay their subscription," said Reavis.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Youse don't pay, dis is what happens, know what I'm sayin'?

[depakid]

7. Yep- and I know that this attitude is why you'll never have universal health care

but instead, millions of medical bankruptcies over the next several years.

[Recursion]

11. Actually health care is a good example -- we have universal access and a stupid way of paying for it

...which limits that access, for a lot of people, to clinics and emergency rooms that the rest of us end up overpaying for.

Similarly, the county has "universal" fire fighting coverage but because they pay for it in a stupid way (which, I remind you, was the county's decision, not the fire department's), all the FD has the resources to do is make sure the fire doesn't spread to somewhere they are funded to protect.

[depakid]

16. Universal access to care? LOL I don't think so

though your citizens bloody well do pay through the nose for it- in no small part because of the preoccupation with ensuring that some people "don't get freebies" that "they don't deserve."

[Recursion]

21. There is literally no-one who can be turned away from an ER or FQHC

So, yes, that's "universal access", quite literally, but its funding mechanism limits that care for a lot of people, and ends up costing way too much. Fortunately HCR at leasts takes some steps in making this sane, and greatly increases FQHC funding.

[Fumesucker]

25. An ER will treat you for cancer?

The services ERs provide are strictly limited, by no means can you get every medical procedure one might need in order to remain alive at an ER.

[Recursion]

34. Did I say they will?

No, I didn't. Next?

[Fumesucker]

42. You claimed it was "universal access" and it's not..

I wasn't really attacking you, I was only pointing out that just because you can get treated at an ER doesn't mean that every medical need you might have will be met.

[Recursion]

47. The ER provides emergency service; the FQHC provides primary care

Both "free" (though the ER will send you a bill, which people often don't pay, which makes us pay more).

Like I said, it's a stupid way to pay for it. But it's there.

[Fumesucker]

50. What is an FQHC? n/t

[depakid]

29. You will not get basic primary care or medications on a consistent basis from the ER

Their only requirement under EMTALA is to stabilize the patient. People aren't going there for check-ups.

[Recursion]

35. Free primary care comes from the FQHC

Where did you get the idea that an ER should provide primary care?

[Fumesucker]

43. I don't think I've ever heard the term FQHC before.. n/t

[Recursion]

48. Federally-Qualified Health Center

http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search_HCC_byAddr.aspx

The massive increase in funding for them is one of the better parts of HCR (thank you, Bernie Sanders).

[Fumesucker]

53. Thanks, but the link wouldn't open..

I waited a minute and tried again, never did open.

Not a bad link I think, just a busy site.

[Recursion]

58. Works fine for me

Maybe try http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov

[depakid]

45. You're not going to get consistent care from there either

among other things, there's not the capacity.

[blondeatlast]

95. Arrow, meet target. Exactly. nt

[Romulox]

130. "Thank GAWD it passed!" you font of compassion, you!

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

5. Yes, one should read it without the intention of misrepresenting it.

But that's asking too much.

[Statistical]

8. What is sick about it?

No freloaders.

Town residents pay for fire dept by TAXES. The town OFFERS (they are under no obligation) fire protection to people outside the town because they have no fire dept.

Why don't they have a fire dept? Because people in the county (like Cranick) have for 20 years resisted raising taxes to FUND A FIRE DEPT.

Not only do they offer fire protection, they sent him a letter, and called him requesting payment and warning him he wasn't covered.

Mr. Cranick doesn't want no ebil Socialist gubbermint telling him how to spend his money. He got what he deserved.

[depakid]

12. The whole "he deserved it deserve because he didn't pay his fee" attitude is vile

and causes your nation a world of hurt on issue after issue.

[Recursion]

15. Do you not get it? It's not just "he didn't pay his fee"

It's that he and the people of the county repeatedly refused to allow taxation for the basic social services they now miss. It's not just that he didn't pay (although he does still owe the fire department for his previous fire), it's that he and others refuse to allow others in the county to pay taxes for a fire department. It's like when I lived in Virginia. We wanted a higher tax in Northern Virginia to pay for roads, but people in the other parts of the state wouldn't allow us to raise taxes on ourselves. It's not just "he didn't pay! ha ha ha!" These people are actively working against any sort of social response to problems.

[depakid]

17. I get what you're saying and still think it's sick to let the guy's house burn down

out of spite or "to teach him or people like him a lesson"

[Statistical]

24. It is not in spite or to teach him a lesson.

It is the reality that you NEED TO PAY FOR SERVICES.

Funding isn't magically come from the pot of gold.

He has no more expectation of service than if VA fired all cops and then expected the NYPD to solve all their crimes for them.
Best of both worlds right. VA residents pay less in Taxes and NY cops paid for by NY taxpayers can pick up the bill.

If you want services (everything from FDA to social security, to road repair, cops, and fire dept) ...... then ..... <DRUMROLL> .... YOU NEED TO PAY FOR THEM.

[depakid]

32. The "law and order" argument doesn't mean you stand there and let the house burn down

If you're so worried about payment- or, more likely, someone "getting over" on the system- just slap a lien on the property or file an action if the bill isn't paid.

[Statistical]

37. The town (and thus fire dept) has NO TAXING AUTHORITY on non-residents.

The idea that you can just slap a lien on property for any reason is silly.

No likely the deadbeat would simply never pay the bill and file bankruptcy if the cost was large enough. Also any contract signed under durress (and most courts would consider signing a contract for cost of fire service while your house is on fire to be under durress) is void.

A good lawyer would get him paying nothing. So who would absorb the cost? Thats right the responsible people who paid their fire dept fee (or the town residents who pay indirectly via taxes).

You honestly think a guy to cheap to pay $75 is going to pay the thousands of dollars that a fire response is going to cost?

[depakid]

52. No reason whatsoever under Tennessee law why the Department can't lien for these services

And btw: THEY ALREADY RESPONDED. They just didn't do their jobs.

Quite frankly, I find your attitude here every bit as bankrupt as Glen Beck's.

[Fumesucker]

55. I read on a blog heavily frequented by lawyers that under TN law a FD can't lien..

No one disagreed, I don't know that it is true but I suspect it might be..

[depakid]

61. Unless there's case law on point, I see no reason why not

Who can claim a lien in this State?

There shall be a lien upon any lot of ground or tract of land upon which a house or structure has been erected, demolished, altered, or repaired, or for fixtures or machinery furnished or erected, or improvements made, by special contract with the owner or the owner’s agent, in favor of the contractor, mechanic, laborer, founder or machinist, who does the work or any part of the work, or furnishes the materials or any part of the materials, or puts thereon any fixtures, machinery, or material, and in favor of all persons who do any portion of the work or furnish any portion of the materials for such building; provided, that the subcontractor, laborer or materialman satisfies all of the requirements set forth in § 66-11-145, if applicable.

http://constructionliens.uslegal.com/state-laws/tennessee-construction-lien-law/

More specifics here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3843/is_200207/ai_n9096718/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

[Statistical]

64. All of which requires a CONTRACT.

A contract signed under durress is invalid.

I can't imagine a court in the country which would find a contract signed to pay for cost to save one's property WHILE one's property is burning wouldn't be considered a contract under duress.

Contact under duress = no contract.
No contract = no ability to place lien.
No lien = unsecured debt (at best FD collects couple cents on the dollar)
Noncollectable debt = paid for people who are responsible (paid via taxes or higher FD service fees).

The fire dept in the past DID respond and bill after the fact. Their collect rates were essentially zero.

[depakid]

75. Sure there's a contract here- athough to recover money, that's not required

there are also quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims.

Bottom line I think is that's not what chaps your hide. My take is that basically want to punish this guy for not paying a fee, even to the extent of letting his house burn down when it could have been prevented.

Not unlike many of the Republican arguments I have seen.

[Statistical]

77. Your weak "your a republican" slander aside, it doesn't change the fact that the town...

The town found that collection rates from deadbeats who didn't opt prepaid coverage was very low.
This is a rather logical result. Someone to cheap to pay $75 to protect their home (most valuable possession in life) is unlikely to pay a $5,000 to $20,000+ bill when presented. In TN to attach a lien to property requires a contract and that isn't possible under the circumstances.

The town TRIED to use your method and did so for years losing money every single year. People simply didn't pay and/or filed bankruptcy to discharge their debts.

As a result the town had three options
a) drop the optional rural coverage = no coverage for residents outside the town
b) raise prices & taxes on those who are paying to subsidize those who refuse to pay
c) institute a policy of not responding (except to protect life or limb) to non-covered residents.

Given the imperfect world I see option C as a fair compromise.

If people want coverage they can purchase coverage. If they don't then they don't however if they don't then it is the real world. They aren't covered.

It has nothing to do with "punishment" it has to do with the effective use of limited resources. Hopefully the county wakes up and passes a tax to cover every resident in the county (even if they personally don't "want" it).

[depakid]

82. It's the same argument that I've read them make! Truth ain't slander, mate

And it's sick shit to stand around and let someone's house burn down to "prove a point" to people.

Sorry, but that's just not how I roll (and thankfully, not how anyone rolls around here).

Kinda why we have universal health care, without worrying about whether people can afford to pay.

[Statistical]

83. For the last time (literrally) it wasn't to "prove a point"

The town simply CAN NOT AFFORD to provide fire services without revenue.

Running a fire department is very expensive. Town residents pay via taxes.
The town has no taxing authority for non-residents. They charge a fee instead. They have no authority to make that fee compulsory. The county could but has voted against any such proposals for over 20 years.

To ensure people pay the fee the town sends both a letter and makes phone call warning the persons they ARE NOT COVERED.

In order to provide coverage the town requires funding. Some people choose not to provide that funding, sadly they are not covered.


"Kinda why we have universal health care, without worrying about whether people can afford to pay."
Weak and dubious argument. One this wasn't a can't afford to pay issue. The man is a homeowner. Someone too poor to pay $75 per year wouldn't be a homeowner. Second the county HAVE VOTED AGAINST universal coverage. The town HAS universal coverage. It would be akin to being upset that a if you today went to a Doctor he would require payment. It isn't the Dr fault there is no universal coverage. It is the govt (and indirectly the voters). The Dr requires compensation for his services and that can come either from taxation (single payer system) or it can come from the patient but it has to come from somewhere.

The homeowner in this situation WANTED universal coverage he simply didn't want to pay for it.

[opiate69]

102. It may well be "sick" but guess what..

we progressives have been screaming for at least 30 years about the fucked-up consequences of the world these selfish, narrow-minded imbeciles have been trying to foist upon the rest of us. What has it gotten us? We're a bunch of "loonies", "lefty extremists", "moonbats"... So now, here's a vivid example, in living color of the kind of shit one can expect to have to deal with if these fuckwits get their way. Good. For what it's worth, I think you;d be hard pressed to find many regulars here who would champion the current system in Obion county. I know I sure as hell don't.. that's why we fight these half-wits.. so shit like this doesn't haveto become the norm.

[COLGATE4]

81. Where is the contract?

What quantum meruit argument would you apply? (BTW, quantum meruit also presupposes the existence of a contract). Unjust enrichment has absolutely nothing to do with this case. You're not a lawyer - did you stay at a Holiday Inn last nite?

[depakid]

93. The guy offered to pay for the services (and so did the neighbor!)

Duress might be a defense, but it would have to be asserted- and wouldn't prevent the filing of a lien (in the event the Dept qualified- as noted in another thread, it's probably a case of first impression here, but the theory is sound).

It would appear that you've never dealt with mechanic's liens before.

Quantum meruit/ unjust enrichment are common types of claims in cases where a party provides a valuable service to another, but for some reason the legal contract isn't fulfilled. You should know that.

Don't know what exactly what the specific Tennessee practice is on these sorts of claims- but again, there's no reason why they wouldn't apply, as these general circumstances are commonplace.

And in any event as a practical matter it would cost this guy a LOT more to try to defend against these claims than to simply pay the bill (a very mundane calculation that seems lost on some people here).

[Statistical]

124. How do you reach that conclusion.

"And in any event as a practical matter it would cost this guy a LOT more to try to defend against these claims than to simply pay the bill (a very mundane calculation that seems lost on some people here)."

Truck roll can easily run into tens of thousands of dollars. Firefighting is expensive work and there (thankfully) are relatively few large fires a year meaning the total fire dept cost is ammortized over a smaller number of claims.

Showing the contract was signed under durress is rather easy. It isn't like he can due any due diligence and make an informed decision (cost of loss vs cost of contract) while he watches his life's work go up in flames. The point you seem to be missing is that the town in the past DID respond to homes without coverage. They found debts to be uncollectable. No doubt they hired third party debt collectors (including lawyers). Why wouldn't they? Since most agencies work on % collected there really is no reason to no try. Worst case scenario the agencies collects little or nothing and they are no worse off than if they hadn't used the agency.

If they found debt to be uncollectable there likely is a reason.

"why they wouldn't apply, as these general circumstances are commonplace. "
Actually this situation is very unique. How many times do mechanics leins involve a duress situation in which a decision must be done rapidly.

For many people the cost of service is likely MORE than the difference between loss and insurance coverage so from a completely logical standpoint it is more expensive to enlist the help of fire dept (w/ postpaid service). Obviously most people (myself included) wouldn't be thinking logically under such a situation.

[COLGATE4]

80. You're quoting from a CONSTRUCTION LIEN statute, which

has nothing to do with the issue in question.

[depakid]

97. You don't think keeping the house from burning represents "an improvement to the property?"

I suppose one could argue that- but I suspect that's a loser. These guys are out there supplying labor, equipment and materials, as per request of the owner.

Just because the application a statute is novel doesn't render it invalid.

[Statistical]

123. However a contract under durress is never going to be enforceable.

The town has found in the past that post-service debts to be uncollectable with vast majority never paying a dime.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

89. The three day rescission waiting period would be a real b*tch! LOL

Here Mr. Homeowner, sign here and we'll be back in three days to start the work.

[Hannah Bell]

112. which has fuck-all to do with fire depts in two tennessee jurisdictions puttting liens on property

or income.

"Every State permits a person who supplies labor or materials for a construction project to claim a lien against the improved property."

was there a construction project involved? i missed that part.

[hayu_lol]

101. Fumesucker, on the first link on my thread...

the county commissioner of Obion County stated that under Tennessee Law fire costs cannot be recovered by legal means. There is no way that the S Fulton FD can recover if the individuals won't pay.

[Statistical]

62. Actually you are wrong. They have no ability to place a lein.

The town has no taxing authority on property outside the town so under the law the fire dept has no special standing.

It would require a court order enforcing a contract to get a lien placed on the property.
The issue however is any contract signed under durress has at least the potential to be found null.

No contract = no court order = no lien.

No property inside the town the govt has ample authority to place liens (even without court order) on property for deliquent taxes, fees, etc.

This property is outside the legal authority of the town and thus to a court the fire dept is simply another entity attempting to enforce a contract. No different than you, me, or his cable company trying to get a lien placed on the property.

[COLGATE4]

79. No reason at all - except they can't legally do it! BTW, the

Fire Department is in a different State from the where the home was. Want to explain how that lien is going to work????

[hayu_lol]

103. Colgate4...that was my error/confusion...

the early threads about this fire cited that the city was in Kentucky. It is not. On the Kentucky side of the border is Fulton and Fulton has a fire department. Across THE ROAD, is South Fulton which has a fire department and is the VFD that responded. Sorry about the confusion.

[Hannah Bell]

115. however, fulton & s. fulton fire depts have a mutual aid pact, & fulton goes out on s. fulton's

rural calls if requested.

so it *is* the case that this county gets some fire protection from another state, as well.

& this isn't the only case of it, either. if i remember correctly. neighboring county fire depts also answer some calls in this deadbeat county, & one of them was in kentucky, i think.

average fire protection spending in neighboring counties: $288K.

in obion county: $12K

the $12K is two search & rescue grants (from the feds, i believe) that go to put out grass or car fires in "selected areas".

no spending on residential fire protection.

[hedgehog]

68. Of all the threads, I think you've caught the essence, so let me quote you

"It is the reality that you NEED TO PAY FOR SERVICES.

Funding isn't magically come from the pot of gold."

If you want services (everything from FDA to social security, to road repair, cops, and fire dept) ...... then ..... <DRUMROLL> .... YOU NEED TO PAY FOR THEM.

[Abq_Sarah]

120. Some people seem to be missing that point

The towns that have taxed their residents and set up fire departments have no obligation to strain their resources by sending their trucks out into the county, out of their districts, to provide free service for people who believe they are entitled to a service they refuse to pay for. In my town we have several overlapping law enforcement jurisdictions but you won't see the town PD answering calls 10 miles outside the town limits.

[Pithlet]

23. Where is "deserve" coming from?

Things cost money. The fire department will cease to exist if they go bankrupt. It's a fact. If these people keep voting to not fund it, but expect to get served anyway, that is the outcome. We don't support the fire department because we think anyone deserves anything. It's the logical flow of events.

[Recursion]

9. How is that "sick"?

He regrets that the county residents apparently can't be bothered to pay for the services they are using, and points out that this was a very obvious and easily-predicted consequence of that.

[fishwax]

94. why are you saying Hornbeak Fire Chief Bob Reavis is a sick individual?

I don't see the sickness in that statement.

[Renew Deal]

125. I don't agree with Reavis

It's the county that's to blame for not finding a way to cover its residents.

[rocktivity]

3. It shouldn't be up to the residents. It's in public interest to have fire protection services.

If the county doesn't have the power to raise or levy a tax that will cover everybody, the state needs to step in.

A la carte fire protection makes as much a sense as being legally married in some of the United states but not others.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Bunny]

18. I agree 100%. But if the state stepped in and mandated this tax,

these nimrods would staple some more teabags to their trucker caps and march on the capital or something. Then they'll vote for clowns like Angle, O'Donnell and Toomey to keep the government out of their pockets. They get exactly the government that they want and deserve, at the expense of those of us who are able to understand the basic concept of taxation for public safety.

It's a mental illness with these people.

[Statistical]

27. Exactly it is the "consequence" of a Democracy.

People vote for what they want (or more directly vote for people who say what they want to hear).

At any point in last 20 years the county he lived in could have raised property taxes and used those funds to either
a) fund their own fire dept
b) simply purchase blanket coverage for all property in the county from nearby cities.

Every proposal to do so was shot down. The people (at least a majority of them) DON'T WANT TO PAY THE TAXES REQUIRED TO FUND A FIRE DEPT.

Hell TN has no income tax because there was almost a riot when the state tried to enact one about a decade ago (in order to balance budget and fund essential services like schools, roads, police, etc).

[Statistical]

4. He got what he deserved.

The man wanted fire protection he just didn't want to pay for it.

He didn't want to pay for it by taxes.
He didn't want to pay for it by living in an area w/ fire protection (and thus higher real estate taxes).
He didn't want to pay for it by a fee.

He simply wanted fire protection paid for by other people.

Hell he didn't even have the right amount of insurance on his home because once again he was cheap. He figured lowballing the insured amount would save him some money (maybe another $50 a year). It would only matter if he had a total loss.

I don't buy the whole "I forgot".
Payment is due every July. Newspapers, TV, radio all talk about it.
The town sent a letter when his coverage lapsed and they hadn't got a payment.
The town then called him requesting payment and advising him he had NO COVERAGE.

3 months later his house burned down and he still doesn't want a tax.

[northoftheborder]

6. An angle to this story I haven't seen addressed::::::

What is the policy of insurance companies concerning this type of arrangement, with the coverage by fire department basically an option for the owner???? Why would they even insure any building, which could possibly become on the "not covered" list because of non payment of fees???? I heard the owner of this house which is the topic of the story say that he had insurance, and that they would pay for his loss. Knowing of the hard hearted policies of insurance in general I can't believe they would go along with coverage in any district with this type of coverage.

[Statistical]

10. Likely the insurance company did insufficient due diligence.

So many counties so many differing policies they likely were unaware of the lack of coverage. No doubt every major and local insurance company is updating their underwriting policies to require fire dept coverage in order to insure the property. Some may simply pay the fee for the property owner (and include the $75 in annual premium).

[PVnRT]

28. That would be odd - one of the boxes on my home insurance application

was "fire coverage yes/no" or something like that.

Of course, he could have just checked "yes" anyway.

[Statistical]

33. Exactly. And at the time he likely was telling the truth.

The company did insufficient due diligence to ensure the coverage remained in effect.

Like I said the biggest loser is the insurance company. They wrote/issued policy that had a negative expected return (probability of fire * expected avg loss < premiums collected). An insurance company that continues to do that isn't insurance company it is gambling.

Likely in the future I would expect insurance companies in the area to change policy to do one of three things:
a) require proof of coverage and if coverage lapses the insurance company pays it and then bills homeowner
b) write policy that states if coverage lapses no claim will be paid
c) simply pay for the coverage and include that cost ($75) in the annual premium.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Most insurance companies rate fire risk in a given jurisdiction.

If your fire department is good you get one rate. If it sucks, you get another. If it's nonexistent, I have to assume you get the worst rate (if you can get insurance at all).

If they created a tax-funded fire service in the county, the homeowners might just find that it costs them less for insurance.

[WolverineDG]

99. don't know about that, but I know I got a break on my insurance

because there's a fire station 1 block from my house.

dg

[SargeUNN]

13. Do you know this guy?

I think you have a personal grudge against this guy or else something about your intense attack on this guy are obsessive compulsive like. It has been mentioned already that there is some question as to the fee being legal but I see you don't bother to cover the whole story just the one that Beck and his type are promoting. So I have to wonder where you are coming from.

[Fumesucker]

19. Never heard of him before..

How is it an "attack" to quote his literal words?

[TwilightGardener]

20. What they're doing is focusing on personality and personal circumstances

to judge this man post-emergency, and then applying that backstory to the FD's decision not to save his house. It's a sign of small minds, or Republicans, to focus on personal merit, socioeconomic status, payment status, race, politics, religion, etc. in determining who is worthy of being helped in a time of need. Had this been a poor minority or elderly woman who failed to pay, assumptions would be different, and the tune here would be of universal outrage. But this is a dumb libertarian hick (or so is assumed) in a double wide, so we are free to judge and deem him unworthy, same as the fire department did.

[Fumesucker]

22. How is quoting someone an "attack"? n/t

[TwilightGardener]

54. "This is the mentality"...why should it matter what the mentality of this family is?

Maybe they're all mentally ill or have a collective IQ of 78. Who cares?

[Fumesucker]

57. The county voted 19-1 against taxes for fire protection...

When I say "this is the mentality" I'm speaking of the average voter in that county..

Even after the family suffers a devastating loss due to a fire, they *still* don't know whether a tax for fire protection is a good idea..

[TwilightGardener]

60. I don't care what the county voted for. I don't care what the average

voter thinks. I don't care if the family thinks all taxes are bad and the sun revolves around the earth and Jesus rode dinosaurs and Obama is the antichrist. The issue is, do we let the full weight of bad decisions and bad policy come down on one family's shoulders in a time of need, when the capability was there to prevent that from happening?

[Fumesucker]

65. Was there water to fight the fire?

Olbion county lacks a fire department, do you really think it has fire hydrants?

Wetting down something to keep it from catching fire takes far less water than extinguishing an inferno.

I doubt the capacity was even there to put out the fire in the first place.

[Statistical]

67. There likely was.

Many fire dept which serve large rural areas (and small towns) routinely have multiple "tank trucks" carrying thousands of gallons of water.

Most highly urban fire districts on the other hand have few tank trucks and just using hydrant network.

There is no reason to think they couldn't stop the fire. The issue is the moral hazard. If everyone gets free coverage then nobody pays for coverage and the fire dept either has to get town to raise taxes (town residents paying for cheap rural homeowners) or it's quality goes down.

[Fumesucker]

70. I'm familiar with tank trucks..

AKA Water Buffalos IIRC..

It's still a limited amount of water, the city only has a population of 2500, how many tank trucks is it likely to have?

[Statistical]

72. Smaller towns actually tend to have more tank trucks then larger cities.

Think about it this way they offer $75 "service" to thousand or so rural residents. None of those thousand covered rural residents have a hydrant near them.

So either
a) they have the ability to put out fires w/o hydrants (meaning sufficient tank capacity)
OR
b) the $75 coverage is completely useless because they won't be able to respond effectively to any covered rural fire.

Rural/semi rural fire departments are planned based on needing to bring their own water. The size, number, and type of trucks support that mission.

Urban/suburban fire department tend to be planned on being able to draw at least some water from hydrant network. Sometimes that results in bad situations (like fire main breaks, insufficient pressure, no hydrant in range, etc).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

91. I counted at least two in the videos. FWIW

[hayu_lol]

104. Fumesucker, from the 2nd link on my thread...

South Fulton has 2 pumpers and 2 tank trucks. For a small town VFD they are pretty well equipped. Of course they voted to support the fire service through their taxes.

[Scout]

85. you don't care about reality, either apparently n/t

[oldhippie]

114. Why do you hate Democracy?

.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Show me a link. The commission voted on it, not the people.

You are also quoting the man's son, not the man, and let me just say that families are not clones, and do not speak one for the other. In addition, the son is not saying he's against the tax. He's saying he does not know.
So it is not the man in question speaking, he did not cast the vote you say he cast, and you are making assumptions about his for your own convenience.
Additionally, I'd put out the fire of a full tilt bigot if I had a truck and a hose. I'd do the hair splitting later on. That is who I am, no matter whose house is on fire, and no matter about money. I err on the side of not being a monster.

[Statistical]

78. It is called a representative govt.

The county council is elected by the people.

It has been 20 years. It isn't something that just happened in the last day or so.
For 20 years the county has voted against raising taxes to fund a fire dept.

Not 1 or 2 election cycles but dozens. If the majority of the people in the county wanted fire dept coverage they would have fire dept coverage.

[Pithlet]

31. No. This was brought up in another thread in another context

explaining that it was likely that this county wouldn't vote to levy a tax to help this fire department. The explanation was that the residents of this county simply don't like to vote in that direction. I brought this guy up as an example. It wasn't meant as an example of why he deserved to have his house burn down. It was meant as "See? Even though he seems to understand how taxes work, and helps everyone, even then he's not certain". It wasn't meat as "he deserved it".

[PVnRT]

30. Really? What is the "whole story" then?

Maybe you'd care to enlighten us, since the "whole story" has been rehashed here many times in the past couple of days.

[SargeUNN]

41. as I posted before

It was brought up on Randi Rhodes show and another one I don't remember which one, that the fee is being looked at because there is a conflict in charging it. I haven't really looked that far into because I believe that anyone who would let a person's home burn down like this over a freaking fee is a sick and inhumane person or people and the punishment for not paying a $75 fee is cruel and extremely excessive. Anyone who can support this reaction I seriously question their humanity if they feel this isn't an injustice then I have be glad they aren't my neighbors because they would certainly create an unneeded anxiety.

[Fumesucker]

44. You claimed I was "attacking" Todd Cranick, please explain how quoting his words ..

Constitutes an "attack"..

[SargeUNN]

59. nice try to run away from your posts for days

I do have to say that you seem to fail to realize that not only did this guy pay for not paying the fee but he paid in excess. The punishment is cruel and unusual so since I support the 8th amendment I have to say this guy has disportionally paid for any wrong and the wrong of the state is the problem. The man's failure to pay is no longer valid because he has paid the price so anyone dwelling on that might as well say that a shoplifter who is caught and his hands chopped off had it coming since he did shoplift and disregard that the punishment is excessive. Check out the 8th amendment it clearly makes such punishment against the constitution and this case is a very good example of why we have the 8th amendment.

[Fumesucker]

63. Where in my OP did I say anything whatsoever about "payment"?

I've reread it carefully and can find no instance of that word..

[SargeUNN]

71. I will just stop trying to reason with you

You don't seem to get the point and keep trying to steer the discussion to the side roads. Therefore I see no use in trying to have a meaningful discussion with you on this with your attitude.

[Fumesucker]

74. In other words you cannot find the word "payment" in my OP..

I actually do understand your point but you fail to acknowledge that there is more than one aspect to this situation.

If I had personally been on the spot at the fire I would have helped the family try to put out the fire, I also understand why a small and not well off city cannot continue to provide services which a large number of people who do not even live in the same state refuse to pay for either before or after the fact.

[Statistical]

69. It is no punishment it is a consequence.

If I have a life insurance policy and then 1 months before my death I forget to make the premium they aren't going to pay the policy to my wife.

At the time of my death I had no coverage. Now it is possible my wife will lose the house without that insurance money. It isn't a punishment and as such it isn't protected under the 8th. It is merely a consequence.


Likewise using lethal force is allowed in a lot of state that don't have death penalty. Lethal Self defense isn't a punishment although if you die from it well it may seem like a death penalty.

[Scout]

86. he was not PUNISHED for anything by the government

jesus h fucking christ on a purple pogo stick.

it's cause and effect ... you don't pay for fire protection, your house catches fire and burns down because you didn't pay for the fire to be put out.

[fasttense]

14. That's not how I read his statement.

I think he is questioning the subscription fee and thinks the tax would help everyone.

Why else would he mention how the tax would cover everyone?

[Pithlet]

26. It says he was not certain whether he would support it

Yes, you would think that someone who understands that the tax helps everyone would support it. That would make sense, wouldn't it? But it says he isn't certain. It makes sense to us. But it doesn't make sense to some people.

[Statistical]

39. he doesn't want his money covering everyone.

a tax likely would be assessed based on property value. Thus people with smaller and crappier homes than his would "get over".

Cheap asses are always worried about someone else getting over on them (while continually trying to get over on other people).
In previous new report he stated he KNEW he hadn't paid and that he thought the fire dept would still respond.

[Fumesucker]

46. That's a possible interpretation, I don't know that it's correct..

[Marr]

56. Believe it or not, I think he meant that in a negative sense.

Somehow, the wording of that statement reminded me of the comments I've heard from working class Republicans about their tax dollars paying for government programs that are used by "people who don't pay taxes" (by that they mean mostly poor black people and Mexican immigrants). It isn't true, of course, but it's part of their mythology. They feel the country is being brought down by poor people, who use government services but don't pay for them.

Granted, for him to express such a sentiment after freeloading on a tax paying community for so long, he'd have to be colossally self-centered and hypocritical, but that describes most of the right-wingers I've known.

Taken in context with his other statements about firefighters being morally obligated to put out every fire they can reach, I took his 'I don't know if I'd support a subscription fee or a tax' simply as a way of saying, "I want the service, but I will not pay for it".

[hayu_lol]

105. Marr, this family has another property, perhaps the son's...

he did not pay for fire coverage(75/year)at that time. This VFD took the call and went ahead and fought the fire. They presented him with a bill. To date, this bill has not been paid. For decades, this VFD has serviced the county area without most people paying the bill. They are running short of money now and cannot keep up the 'do it anyway' service. Neither property has paid for the fire service.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. I agree with you

[Pathwalker]

36. Meh. A man died here last week when his house burned down.

Not because the firefighters didn't show up - they did. Not because they didn't try to fight the fire - they did. Not because we don't pay taxes to fund our fire Dpt. - we do.
His house burned down with him in it because there are no fire hydrants anywhere around, so the fire fighters and neighbors had to fight the fire using the neighbors' hoses attached to their outdoor faucets.

So, a man died, his elderly wife is homeless, his historic house is gone, but I predict no one here will give a damn.

I have voted for every school, library, fire and police tax millage and increase in the 30 years I have lived here, and people will still die in fires here because we still have no water trucks for our fire dept. and we never will. Thanks to all the libertarians in this idiot town.

[AlabamaLibrul]

40. TIME.... MARCHES ON! How has this shit not jumped the shark yet? n/t

[Fumesucker]

49. The story I linked to was posted yesterday..

This is new information on a hot topic here on DU.

You *could* just hide the thread if you don't like it.

[Brewman_Jax]

51. Still not sure?

How do they want to fix this? The libertarian "paradise" model isn't working, obviously.

The freeper freeloader model, i.e. "we won't pay 'cause we know the stupid lib'ruls won't let anything bad happen to us" can't work for long.

The fee-for-service, or "Bill 'em, Danno!" model can't work. Past history shows that it didn't work, either. Also, an important legal point: contracts made under duress are not enforceable. Of course, I'd swear to pay any amount, whether I actually had it or not, to save my house.

The county mandated service model would be best, but it flies in the face of democracy and self-determination. The county residents have continuously refused to fund a fire dept., but a democracy allows stupid people to be stupid, but everyone else has to suffer, also. That's the freepers' nightmare--the socialist nanny state. They would scream bloody murder over that.

How long, O Lord, how long?

[Statistical]

66. Ironically this incident could do more to move to tax funded model.

Most people who in the past didn't want the tax likely had 3 excuses.

Excuses:
a) I can just pay the fee. I will never forget.
b) Even if I don't pay the fire MY house will never catch fire.
c) Even if I do have a fire I am "sure" the FD will come anyways.

This incident has destroyed those three myths/excuses.

Might be possible then next time a "fire tax" is voted on it passes and the county has universal coverage paid for by "ebil socialist gubbermint taxes". Oh the irony.

[Pithlet]

84. His mother doesn't blame the fireghters.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/07/tennessee-woman-doesnt-blame-firefighters-who-let/ She also states they didn't come when called. Which also backs what I've been saying. They didn't come and watch it burn. They'd come to fight the neighbor's fire after their house had already been burning for hours. People are jumping to conclusions and blaming the wrong people. It's been a mob mentality at DU today.

[renate]

87. that's good to know--and it probably says something about the truth of the situation

She was there, after all. I'm impressed by her attitude and by the way that, with a national audience willing to send her money, she's not being opportunistic about this.

:thumbsup: to Paulette Cranick. She sounds like a person with a lot of integrity and with the right priorities.

[HuckleB]

88. 80...

[petronius]

90. Why should he? I'm sure all the 'community-oriented' DUers here, once they get done

lambasting the FD and accusing other DUers of being aynrandians, will whip out their checkbooks and pitch in to restore the damage and fund an Obion County fire department. It's the only moral thing to do, right?

[Scout]

92. of course they will! n/t

[BzaDem]

96. Again, how is this AT ALL relevant? If he showed up at an ER with a gunshot wound,

should they refuse treatment because of an expectation that he won't pay afterward?

How is his point of view on ANY issue at ALL relevant to the question at hand?

[Fumesucker]

110. Would you care to offer your opinion on my next OP on the subject of the TN fire?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9277275

ETA: I offered my opinion of why it's relevant in the OP, here you have a person whose parents home just burned down due to the lack of a tax supported fire protection service in their county and this person is *still* not sure there should be a tax supported fire protection service.

It speaks to the way people in this county think (on the average), which is a legitimate subject for discussion, just like how Republicans nationally think on any number of subjects is a legitimate subject for discussion on DU.

[WolverineDG]

98. and instead of making the connection between taxes paid & services provided,

Dems would rather sit around & pontificate about "moral obligations," once again blowing an opportunity to combat the "tax & spend" meme.

Guess it's more fun to do that than to address legitimate concerns about where the money for the services people want & need will come from. Just because someone asks "how are we going to pay for that?" doesn't mean they're against it.

dg

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Mebbe I am reading impaired

While Todd Cranick is not certain whether he would support a county-wide subscription fee program versus a mandatory tax, he said, "If it's taxed, that covers everybody. Not just the city, not just the county. Everybody will have it."


Let me read this again... "If it's taxed, that covers everybody."

Now perhaps I am not reading this correctly, but that sounds like he is AGAINST the subscription system, a FLAT tax, but FOR a taxation system.

But hey. I must be reading this wrong.

And no, not Sarcasm needed here.

[Fumesucker]

106. "Everybody will have it" could also be read as "Those poor people will have it and not deserve it."

I really have no idea which meaning is the correct one, just throwing it out as a possible interpretation based on my experiences with some of my fellow citizens here in full metal Wingtopia..

Of course your interpretation is also possible.

[hayu_lol]

108. Here is a link to Hannah Bell's thread with the links...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9263353

These links show what the problem is...particularly the pdf file of the commissioners of Obion County. Fairly long read but shows the facts.

[Zanzobar]

107. The arguments would be quite interesting...

...had the FD tried to put out the fire and two fireman had died, or their equipment was destroyed leaving the city without protection until they could float a bond to rebuild the FD on future revenues of the city.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Due to the national exposure

this could run the FD a little more than 75 bucks....

If there is a cert review that will be expensive.

And if the insurance company decides to sue... they are known to do that...

Just saying.

[Zanzobar]

111. I don't get it.

Maybe you should spell out more clearly what you are "Just saying".

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. The insurance company will want to recover this loss

the obvious target for this recovery is the FD... for standing idle no matter what a contract says.

Or they will raise rates for EVERYBODY in Obion CO.

But the lawsuit against the FD will not shock me.

The International Association also asked for a certification review. IF (and there is a good chance the fire marshal will go there) they decide to do a full certification review, that will cost a lot of money.

It is far more than 75 bucks by the way.

If they want to avoid this in the future... either fight a fight and get a contract that you can recover costs in court.... or cancel your mutual aid agreement and stay within city limits.l

[Zanzobar]

117. It could also be that had the firefighters been injured...

fighting that fire, their own insurance company might opt to withold benefits for fighting fires they were not contractually obligated to fight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Yes, and... they are up a shit creek

and I will not be too shocked if a slew of mutual aid agreements are cancelled.

This is fucked up beyond belief, but right now they are still liable...

[DURHAM D]

119. "right now they are still liable"

horse manure

[Statistical]

129. They aren't liable for SHIT.

If my next door neighbor has private security and I don't and those security guards see me get mugged they *could* respond, it might even be the right thing to respond but they have absolutely no liability if they don't respond to "an uncovered asset".

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. You want to tell that to the INSURANCE company?

fire is different than oh Wackenhut.

[Abq_Sarah]

122. The problem is

The town FD had no legal obligation to fight a fire for a non subscriber in the county. Two separate municipalities.

[Statistical]

127. So simply solution if the future the town fire dept will offer NO fire protection outside the town.

Period. All the responsible county residents lose the ability to pay $75 for coverage.

Tell people in the county if they want coverage the county needs to pay $680,000 (32,000 residents / 2.5 residents per residence * $75 ea * 30% bulk discount). The county can tax the county residents and pay the town one lump sum for "universal" coverage.

It is what I would do.

So either the entire county will be covered or nobody will be covered.

[DURHAM D]

116. The insurance company can't sue the city.

That's nonsense.

The insurance company will likely pay the claim and then cancel the Cranick's because of their careless behavior with burns and because they did not pay for fire protection.

OTOH - if their investigation reveals that that an accelerant is present they may not pay off in full - even if it was used just to start the barrel fires. Or, if Cranick lied on his insurance application that he had subscribed for fire protection they won't need to pay. I say this because several members of my family are in the insurance business (sales, adjustors, legal departments) and we are all discussing/following this case with great interest. I think they will settle out for far less than full value of the home and tool shed.

[Zanzobar]

121. You seem to know

I'm curious. I ask these questions because you seem to know about the insurance bizz. Suppose they had fought the fire and their equipment had been destroyed, or one of the firefighters had died. Would there be cause for their insurer to withhold claims because they fought a fire outside their jurisdiction, or where there was no contractual obligation? Could they have been considered freelancers improperly using city property without authority? Could they be considered liable had they accidentally squashed one of the dogs or cats in their rescue effort where they had no legal jurisdiction?

[Statistical]

128. It all depends on the wording of the contract.

The contract could be worded such that injuries outside official business are not covered. That likely would be the cheaper option.

However the contract could be worded such that injuries the occured outside official duties (but within scope of job) are still covered (for example fire chief on way home sees a car fire on highway. Since time is of the essence he responds). That would have cost the town more (as it presents more of a risk to underwriter).

Without seeing the actual insurance contract it really is a guess.... but my guess is the former. Small town likely picked the cheapest most limited form of insurance. Fire fighting is expensive and insurance is also expensive.

[Renew Deal]

126. There is a sick attitude in this country that only those that can pay should have access

to emergency services. I remember people going on in the health debate that if everybody has it, then they might not be able to get the treatment they want. There are people that want others to not be a part of the "system" so they will have a better chance when they need it. Cranick's statement reflects that.