Free Market Fire Dept. Lets Man's House Burn

I still can't get over the fact that this story is true. I swear I thought it was from the Onion.

So what? Some liberal wants a free handout? The guy knowingly didn't pay the $75 fee. That's like not paying your car insurance and then wanting Geico to pay for your wrecked car. Give me a break. There are consequences to every decision in life. You should own your decisions.

So what if people were trapped inside the house? Should they die over a $75 fee?

Why can't the city just raise everyone's taxes by $75 if they need the money so badly?

"Ever wonder what a PRIVATIZED fire department would look like?"
As oppossed to the public one that didn't even show up. LOL

Anyway, until a PROPER news agency reports it, this is just urban legend. Who was the reporter, Bill Maher?

It did get reported by a news outlet.

The local NBC affiliate reported it:

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

And so did the National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/pay-spray-firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster

"As oppossed to the public one that didn't even show up. LOL"

There was not "public" fire dept. The one that showed up was the only one for that area.

Houses should be small enough to drown in a bathtub, if necessary

The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department.

But the fascinating part of this story for me is that the firefighters ended up having to put the fire out on the property of a neighbor who had paid the fee. That's actually why we have taxes and common payment for essential services like fire fighting. Yes, the Cranicks saved on tax-like fee payments, and yes, they suffered the consequences of doing so. But their neighbor paid for protection, and suffered fire damage anyway. And not because of random accident, but because the firefighters were forced to refuse to come to the Cranicks' assistance. If they had, the neighbor would have had no damage at all.

It's also why we do things like treat even undocumented immigrants in hospital emergency rooms. No, they haven't paid. But yes, you stand a much better chance of not getting their tuberculosis when you hire them on the cheap, pretending not to notice their immigration status.

The Cranicks offered to pay whatever it took to put the fire out. Why not do so, and then charge as doctors or hospitals might for uninsured patients? Apparently Republican Utopia is filled not with Libertarians, but with moral scolds. Who knew? We all thought it was the opposite! The fiscal conservatives of Obion County, Tennessee threw out the money they spent sending the trucks out, and turned their backs on a profit-making opportunity in exchange for the chance to stick in in the Cranicks' eye. Why, you can practically taste the fiscal responsibility and good ol' fashioned common sense that made America great (but the Confederacy presumably greater)!

The silver lining here is that local water utilities now have a new and untapped revenue source. They can begin squeezing fire departments every time they want to open a hydrant.

Be on the lookout next summer for pay-to-play fire departments dropping lit matches around town to drum up business. And remember, if one of their fires melts your Medicaid-paid mobility scooter, you can still get another free one in time for the next Teabagger rally.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/4/907568/-Houses-should-be-small-enough-to-drown-in-a-bathtub,-if-necessary

Id be quite surprised if this story were actually true. The local NBC affiliate you post qualifies as credible though.

Each city in Obion County has volunteer firefighters, so, if this story is true, this man's neighbors decided to allow his house to burn.

"Other Obion County Cities Each city has a volunteer fire department. Call their city hall for more information."
http://www.obioncounty.org/industrial_opportunities/support_services.html

Obviously they can't afford a fire department.
It's sad but I sure as sheeet am not willing to pay more in federal taxes to put out Joe Bobs fires in timbuktu.
Local yokel issue.

There's no inherent reason why a contracted fire protection arrangement cannot work, or why a volunteer fire department is not better than a publicly owned one. That said law enforcement, fire protection and sanitation are services long provided by municipalities. Very few argue that this is excessive government. But then again, private sanitation works too. What ever does the job most efficiently and at lowest cost should be used(and volunteer protection costs too)

More importantly, what would the fire dept. do if someone was trapped in a house and did not pay their $75 fee? Is there an exception to the rule, or is the teabagger fire chief going to let them die? I actually dare these fee for service fire departments to let someone die. Let them see how fast the lawsuits and manslaughter indictments get dropped on them.

No intelligent person would structure the service that way. Might as well charge criminals for law-enforcement. One would need to not link pay with service. Many municipalities contract out for services. this should be no different.

This fee strucutre is also an arsonist's dream come true. If you want to burn down your house for the insurance money, just don't pay the $75 fee!

Exactly! that's why nobody would structure private fire protection in that manner. I read the story. It's quite possible Westchester had a good idea, but executed it poorly.

Who'd trust a local government agency to keep an up-to-date, instantly accessible, accurate record of who paid the fee?? Ironically, in many ways this model puts way more trust in government than the usual fire-service-for-all policy.

not to mention that the fire froom someone who did not pay the fee can easily spread to the house of someone who did pay the fee.

OMG where are the rules. THis is like old school protection money.

Of course now everyone will pay the $75 but if someone doesn't, they've been warned!

Who is advocating for privatizing fire departments? This is a dumb straw man argument from Pres. More of his credibility lost forever . . .

"There's no inherent reason why a contracted fire protection arrangement cannot work, or why a volunteer fire department is not better than a publicly owned one."

Hmm. Which was better - the Brown Shirts or the Black Shirts?

I can't believe they let his house burn down, even when he offered to pay the cost. That's gangster.

Maybe w67thstreet could have put it out with his "big

"I can't believe they let his house burn down, even when he offered to pay the cost. That's gangster."

Welcome to Tea Party USA!

I still would love to know what the fire dept.'s policy is if someone is trapped in a burning house and did not pay the $75 fee... Do they make an excpetion or do they throw the person trapped inside some marshmellows?

I wonder where somewherelese is. I would have expected him to defend the fire dept. and blame Democrats for the incident by now. Glenn Beck has.

The danger of unbridled capitalism.

The United States was originally created as a constitutional republic, however it has gradually became a corporate republic. ______Some of our elected officials in the legislature has taken it upon themselves to redefine the definition (meaning) of the United States from that of being a Constitutional republic to that of a federal corporation _____See: TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.
(Re: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

A corporate republic is a theoretical form of government occasionally hypothesized in works of science fiction, though some historical nations such as medieval Florence might be said to have been governed as corporate republics. While retaining some semblance of republican government, a corporate republic would be run primarily like a business, involving a board of directors and executives. Utilities, including hospitals, schools, the army, and the police force, would be privatized. The social welfare function carried out by the state is instead carried out by corporations in the form of benefits to employees. Although corporate republics do not exist officially in the modern world, they are often used in works of fiction or political commentary as a warning of the perceived dangers of unbridled capitalism. In such works, they usually arise when a single, vastly powerful corporation deposes a weak government, over time or in a coup d'état. (Re: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Should we privatize Social Security, the veterans services as well as other governmental services.
My thought on this is No ________Due to the fact there exists an elite few who control this country thru their vastly powerful corporation. Make no mistake about it they would love to take over this government by full privatization of the government itself, if allowed by our elected officials and those who set idly by and do nothing to prevent it.

Think about it: Which corporation gives the most money to our elected official who support their agenda, (which is the privatization of the government) by means of campain contributions. Also thing about what President Obama said in one of his previous speeches “He wants to see a civilian Military just as strong and as well funded as our current Military” More importantly, think about why some of our elected officials changed the meaning the United States from that of being a constitutional republic to that of being a Federal Corporation.

Some have said: “corporate republics do not exist officially in the modern world, they are often used in works of fiction or political commentary as a warning of the perceived dangers of unbridled capitalism.” However, I found that fiction sometimes has a tendency to be come a reality.

Do not take my word for any thing which I said about “The danger of unbridled capitalism.” do your own research of this subject instead.

SOMETHING YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER
A Private Federal Corporation (PFC), also known as a Federal Government Corporation (FGC), is a corporation which has been established by the Federal Government. There are, of course, benefits to this, not the least of which would be the disbursement and management of funding by the corporation that would not be subject to Congressional oversight or monitoring. An additional benefit would be autonomy in operations. (Re: SourceWatch )

Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
“Independent establishments are created by Congress to address concerns that go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. These agencies are responsible for keeping the government and economy running smoothly.” (Re: USA.gov)

What is the definition of legislation?
dictionary.com defines "legislation" as:
1. the act of making or enacting laws.
2. a law or a body of laws enacted.

“Our Bill Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not gravel before an all powerful government.” Justice William O. Douglas. U.S. Supreme Court

The framers of our Constitution warned that if legislative power were combined with executive power, or if legislative power were combined with judicial power, our republic would become an oligarchy and the rights of the people would be sacrificed to achieve the selfish ends of those who govern. _______Madison wrote, “(the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one , few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Typically of the Federalists who advocated ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton explained that the separation of powers was “itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” It would deny a single department autonomous governance. It would keep abuse of power in check by humbling those in government with the need to satisfy the dictates of competing power centers.

Note: The words autonomous in operations and autonomous governance has the same
meaning. (independence and/or sovereignty.)

After reading the above article The danger of unbridled capitalism, one can gain a better understanding of the danger of privatizing government agencies, and how Congress has established policies and/or laws which go beyond the law (ordinary legislation ) at their leisure.

The reason the fire department in question did not respond to the man whose house they let burn down is because a private corporate contractual issue. This would have never been an issue if the United States was still a constitutional republic, rather than a Federal Corporation (republic) run by the private sector. The fire department in question acted according to corporate policy, rather than by constitutional authority.

Bill of Rights:
The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. An agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself……The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting any establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, guarantees free speech, free press, free assembly and association and the right to petition government for redress, forbids infringement of "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...", and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The so called 'Pay-to-Spray' is not a valid State of federal law, it is nothing more than a private corporate policy.

WILLIAM MARBURY
v.
JAMES MADISON
The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not he mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Abraham Lincoln

That must be Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.
Abraham Lincoln

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln

The part that nobody's including in their print news from Cranick's interview and his own mouth.
I heard it on the video clip this morning either on CNN or MSNBC and have not been able to find it anywhere online in print, except for this single posting on a tweet! And I for sure heard these words and remember them as the below from the interview.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/LorettaSingbiel/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272_62720244.html

Cranick Sr
"Back when we had a real fire chief about 3 years ago this December, we had a fire up here in my boy's house, we done had the fire put out before they got there, but it don't make a difference, because they waived the fee until the next day, and then I went in to pay it."
Keith Olbermann asked him if the "REPUBLICAN" fire chief for the past 3 years has allowed other houses to burn down because they hadn't paid the fee, and he said they did."

Now let me state, I in no way support what the mayor did.They should have put out the fire...period.
My Dear Pres, if you can possibly look beyond your political soapbox you've embraced the last couple days, if YOUR son burned his house down three years ago and you didn't pay the fee then, and didn't learn your lesson then, and now your son, who apparantly ain't quite Smokey the Bear burns down YOUR house , should you just be blaming/angry at the mayor?

Kinda reminds me of that Chris Rock bit on OJ killing Goldman. "Ron Goldman was Nicole's boyfriend.He wasn't just some guy returning sunglasses. When's the last time you left some Sh*& in a restaurant and they brought it back to your house? OJ's paying her 25K a month alimony. ANd Goldman's driving around in a Ferrari that OJ bought for Nicole. Think about this...I buy you a car, you let another man drive around in the car. Are you out of your effing mind. Im not saying OJ should have killed her...But I understand."

so when a fee-paying homeowner's house catches fire, either by act-of-god, intent or negligence and the fire spreads to his non-fee-paying neighbor's house; the non-payer's house is let burn

can this tea be smoked as well as guzzled??

party!!!!

this shit is clearly obama's fault

Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee -- again

SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. -- Firefighters stood by and watched a Tennessee house burn to the ground earlier this week because the homeowners didn't pay the annual subscription fee for fire service.

"You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Vicky Bell, the homeowner, said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Bell, that sight was almost as disturbing as the fire itself.

"We just wished we could've gotten more out," she said.

It's the second time in two years firefighters in the area have watched a house burn because of unpaid fees. Last year, Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in a house fire, along with three dogs and a cat, because the fire fee wasn't paid.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

Welcome to Tea Party America!

You should have quoted this:

"Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them."

They could have also paid to have the fire put out if they wanted to.

"but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour, according to dailytimes.com."

There never should have been such a policy in the first place. Its beyond stupid. Just tax every property the money needed, like normal cities.

The reason this stopped happening in most of the civilized world is you literally had massive out of control fires across multiple city blocks because the private fire departments refused to put out the small first fires. This happened a LOT in places like New York and Chicago in the 1800s.

why is it a stupid policy?
not everyone thinks they need, for example, flood insurance. Then the house is destroyed by the flood.
That's a 'too damn bad' story.
In this town it's in black and white. You pay, we squirt. You don't pay, we bring the marshmellows.
You roll the dice you takes your chances.
If I lived in that town...I'd pay.
I say screw the none payers.
It's that old story, I'll let my neighbor pay.

Put my fire out...for free
provide me with medical care...for free
housing....for free
food...for free
When I'm old I want you to send me money...for free
That's whats wrong with this country. Big load of freeloaders.

News: Party's over

burn baby burn

'why is it a stupid policy? "

I just answered why: "The reason this stopped happening in most of the civilized world is you literally had massive out of control fires across multiple city blocks because the private fire departments refused to put out the small first fires. This happened a LOT in places like New York and Chicago in the 1800s."

It can work in rural isolated areas, but even then there is a risk of a fire burning out of control.

In addition, if and when someone dies in the fire and the for-pay firemen do nothing about it, that is beyond evil. In neither of these cases did this happen, but there HAVE been cases in the past where animals, people, and even young children have died because of for-pay fire department refused to act.

Oh, falcogold, I'm feeling tingly all over.

Volunteer fire depts do work in small areas. And in NYC we do have volunteer ambulances that are staffed and manned by dedicated professionals. There's nothing inherent in any one model that makes one superior to the other.

who is the volunteer ambulance in nyc?

>This happened a LOT in places like New York and Chicago in the 1800s."

Oh, right, I remember clearly, the 1800s, tough times, tough times. But actually, in the 1800s, the fires were very different, everything from the flames, to the burning power, to how they started, to the witches and scarecrows, to the elevators you could or couldn't take in case of a fire, to the number of hydrogen atoms in the water, etc.. If you were there you'd know and you'd know why your references are actually entirely irrelevant.
Any more recent experiences you can share?

Jason, how did you get to New York? Was it our more generous welfare and disability programs?

guys, go read some books

in history, fire departments were privately owned and operated. at that time, 2 different fire companies will violently fight to gain control of a fire

that was the real american spirit

who is the volunteer ambulance in nyc?

Hatzolah,Bay Communinity Volunteer Ambulance

Valatie Volunteer Rescue Squad(in Columbia County)

what is the qualification to be get serviced by hatzolah?

this hatzolah website says there aren't any.

"With their large army of volunteers, they treat all in need at no coast regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. Hatzolah does not receive any government funding, nor does it seek reimbursement from medical insurance companies."

http://www.hatzolahw.com/

are you privy to information that suggests otherwise?

"2 different fire companies will violently fight to gain control of a fire"

would they violently fight the fire or violently fight eachother? everyone saw that movie, caonima. Scorsese was robbed. chicago? give me a break.

lucil, 2 different fire companies violently fight each other. by the time there's a winner, the house is normally destroyed by fire. and the winner who gain the right to control the fire will do very little, but ask for a big price from the property owner. this happened in most big cities, not only in chicago. this is the american spirit in fact.

did you know that Hennig Brandt discovered phosphorus in 1669 while attempting to extract gold from urine?

They didn't pay the fee. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let em burn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw