http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firef...-104052668.html

 

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

 

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

 

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.

 

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

 

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.

 

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

 

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

 

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

 

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.

That is f***ed up. So that fire department is paid solely by those $75 fees and no other taxpayer money?

That is f***ed up. So that fire department is paid solely by those $75 fees and no other taxpayer money?

 

Not from the county, only the city of South Fulton.

 

Frankly though, it makes no sense. I have seen many shared services agreements, but nothing like this. It's incredibly dangerous.

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

 

oops

What an ugly situation.

What an ugly situation.

The only part that surprises me and that I find ugly is that the FD wouldn't take an offer of "I'll pay the full cost of you coming out".

home insurance should be really high in an area that has a fire dept like that. i know there are often different rates based on distance from fire hydrant, fire station, ect. imagine the extra charge for having a fire dept that will watch your house burn down if you forget to pay a 75$ fee. there would have to be a clause in the policy that excluded insurance payment if the 75$ fee was not paid.

Edited October 4, 201015 yr by mr_genius

I know of a Wal-Mart that literally has a fire department at the end of their parking lot. But if the Wal-Mart ever caught on fire the firefighters couldn't do anything about it because it's not in their district.

Not from the county, only the city of South Fulton.

 

Frankly though, it makes no sense. I have seen many shared services agreements, but nothing like this. It's incredibly dangerous.

I've seen it come up in the EMS world, but not fire or police. Some municipalities moved to private EMS providers, and in some rare cases, people were denied care because of a lack of paid fees or managed care insurnace demands, etc.

 

Privatized fire, police and EMS are, IMO, asking for trouble. This is an example of that.

 

The only part that surprises me and that I find ugly is that the FD wouldn't take an offer of "I'll pay the full cost of you coming out".

 

Same here. But your taxes do, at least, partially fund the cost of responders - if nothing else the 911 Dispatch center. The other thing I wonder about is what if you rent? Who is responsible for paying then? The tenant? The landlord?

Same here. But your taxes do, at least, partially fund the cost of responders - if nothing else the 911 Dispatch center. The other thing I wonder about is what if you rent? Who is responsible for paying then? The tenant? The landlord?

Yeah, I'd guess this model won't last. Way too many lawsuits could easily come from it.

 

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

 

While opt-in fire protection is a stupid idea that should never ever be implemented, what kind of idiot says to themselves "hell if I am paying that 75 bucks every year for fire service".

 

My question would be is if there were people trapped in the house would the fire department be obligated to take the call, I would think they would have to. I guess that is one way for Gene to get out of paying the fee, next time his house burns down lie and say you think someone is trapped in the house.

 

I guess that is one way for Gene to get out of paying the fee, next time his house burns down lie and say you think someone is trapped in the house.

 

Yeah I doubt that would lead to any lawsuits if he deliberately lied about people being in the house and a fire fighter or two died while attempting to find them.

Yeah I doubt that would lead to any lawsuits if he deliberately lied about people being in the house and a fire fighter or two died while attempting to find them.

So he should go back into the house and become trapped.

Yeah I doubt that would lead to any lawsuits if he deliberately lied about people being in the house and a fire fighter or two died while attempting to find them.

 

This idiot wouldn't pay a measly 75 bucks a year to be eligible for fire protection services, is it really out of the realm of possibility that he wouldn't consider the ramifications of lying about people being trapped in the house to get the fire department out there?

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

I don't believe I feel sorry for this idiot.

Now replace "fire department" with "Health insurance".

via yglesias

Optimal Pricing of Fee For Service Firefighting Services

Here’s an odd story from Tennessee:

 

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

 

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.

 

Obviously the more densely populated your town the less you’re going to want to sign on for this madcap experiment in quasi-privatized provision of government services. But part of what’s odd here is the mayor’s refusal to provide ex post firefighting services at any price. Since putting a fire out is much cheaper at the margin than rebuilding a burned-down house, it should be easy to set a pricing scheme that doesn’t entail any substantial adverse selection issues.

 

I think there’s a surprising amount of inefficiency in the world deriving from the fact that people with various competencies—fighting fires, organizing rock concerts, cooking tasty food—don’t really understand optimal pricing.

btw it really should be opt-out to be successful.

Now replace "fire department" with "Health insurance".

Sure, why buy health insurance until you really need it. You can always get it when your ass is on fire. No need to be prepared and plan ahead.

So, over $75, they let this house burn down. That allowed significant risk to neighbors. It didn't save money, because they were all there watching it burn. It removes future property tax revenue. It lowers property values next to the burned down house. Instead of putting out the fire and sending him a bill for the services, they just let it burn.

 

Monumentally stupid, all around.

Sure, why buy health insurance until you really need it. You can always get it when your ass is on fire. No need to be prepared and plan ahead.

 

I think his point was about mandatory policies and why it is a good idea.

I think his point was about mandatory policies and why it is a good idea.

And I turned it around. Why buy protection until after you need it! he knew of the need, was able to afford the price and didnt do it just 'because'. Then when his hosue got 'sick', it was too late.

 

Couple that with the significant financial loses to the community and that you now have a homeless family and you see why you shouldn't have opt-in fire protection or health insurance.

I know that a bunch of abandoned burned down houses has done wonders for detroit.