House next door burned to the ground...

[TropicalTroubador]

50 minutes to arrive because of no 'subscription'? This is something that deserves to be dragged through the national media. Whoever dragged their feet on the response deserves a little public humiliation.

I just read an article about someone in TN who had the same problem; they didn't pay the fee and their house burned to the ground.

I can't help but think that the growing attitude of "I'm not going to pay for anyone else's healthcare/job training/insurance" has to contribute to this. The point of helping our neighbors is so that they're able to help *us* when it's *our* turn. Because sooner or later, it *will* be.

I'm glad your house survived, and that your neighbors were there to help save it.

[citcat]

Yes, it is a city policy, and the ones who have to pay the $75 'subscription' fee are just outside the city limits. And yes, everybody should pay it, just in case. There just has to be something that can be done. They DID say if there was somebody in the house, they would come to the fire scene. Which might give the message, "Don't leave your house-on-fire if you haven't paid the fee." EGADS I hope nobody is that dumb.
When the first time this happened in 2008 (the house next door was on fire), the fire department didn't come until several people called and said our roof was smoking and the shingles were curling up. And we had paid our dammed 'fee'.

[Skibo]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think there is another side to this story.

Folks who live in cities and towns that provide fire protection services pay for them through their taxes. They have no choice and this makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't want my home or place of business put at risk because some joker next door didn't think he needed fire protection services. I'm sure that's why in cities and towns the residents aren't given this choice.

The folks who live outside the tax jurisdiction of nearby cities and towns enjoy a lower property tax rate through not having to pay taxes to cover municipal services. Many property owners seek out these kinds of arrangements in order to lower their property tax bill. They get out from under the whole load of municipal taxes that they don't want to pay. They don't automatically get fire protection services because they don't pay for them in their taxes, and many of them like it that way. In some of these areas, the residents can choose to buy fire protection services by paying the fee. Those who don't pay the fee don't get the service. I think it's a crazy way to do things myself, but it does make sense from a libertarian point of view. Automatically giving citizens services that they themselves aren't paying for while their neighbors foot the bill seems to go against the ideas of small government and self-reliance that libertarians promote.

Personally, I think fire protection services shouldn't be a choice and everyone should share in the cost of having them through paying for them in their tax bill, just like we pay for schools, roads, police services, etc. I'd add single-payer universal health care to that list, but that might start an argument . . .

I retract my previous opinion and ack, upon further review agree with flyboy. I misunderstood the situation. That said, this is really screwed up. If the township is going to contract out fire services to another community, they should have thrown the the $75 on the property tax bill for the residents. It sure would have prevented this type of mess from happening. I live in a community that has a volunteer FD. Our township throws them a small amt of money every year, they beg for donations the rest of the year for most of their operating expenses. Seems that there are so many better ways to handle this than what was done. Personally, I can't believe a person could get homeowners insurance without paying for the fire support.

[Thewino]

There is no possible way that $75 per house outside the city limits is enough money to run a fire department. This is simply an added fee in addition to the already paid property taxes. The property taxes are what is used to make a city function. Fire and police are basic services that should be provided in each community and are funded from the propery taxes.

I don't believe I would live in a city that would let my house burn down simply because I didn't pay a measly $75 fee after paying my property taxes. How would they know it wasn't a simple oversight by the home owner? Who makes the decision that will cause property tax paying families to lose everything they own?

The negative consequences of the fire department not responding would tend to hurt the city from more that a PR standpoint. If a house burns down, there is one less family paying property taxes, and possibly local sales taxes if they move out of town. Therefore, the community has less to spend in their yearly budget. Also, as a previous poster mentioned, the houses nearest the fire that isn't being contained are being put in danger of being consumed or damaged.

There have to be better ways to close budget gaps that allowing houses to burn to the ground. I would make sure I voted in someone who agreed with this thinking.

[flyboy55]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think there is another side to this story.

Folks who live in cities and towns that provide fire protection services pay for them through their taxes. They have no choice and this makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't want my home or place of business put at risk because some joker next door didn't think he needed fire protection services. I'm sure that's why in cities and towns the residents aren't given this choice.

The folks who live outside the tax jurisdiction of nearby cities and towns enjoy a lower property tax rate through not having to pay taxes to cover municipal services. Many property owners seek out these kinds of arrangements in order to lower their property tax bill. They get out from under the whole load of municipal taxes that they don't want to pay. They don't automatically get fire protection services because they don't pay for them in their taxes, and many of them like it that way. In some of these areas, the residents can choose to buy fire protection services by paying the fee. Those who don't pay the fee don't get the service. I think it's a crazy way to do things myself, but it does make sense from a libertarian point of view. Automatically giving citizens services that they themselves aren't paying for while their neighbors foot the bill seems to go against the ideas of small government and self-reliance that libertarians promote.

Personally, I think fire protection services shouldn't be a choice and everyone should share in the cost of having them through paying for them in their tax bill, just like we pay for schools, roads, police services, etc. I'd add single-payer universal health care to that list, but that might start an argument . . .

I've been thinking along the same lines today. I don't think it's a good way to do business either but if you haven't paid for the service....

I think a better way to run things is that the fire gets put out and you get charged a huge fee if you haven't paid ahead for the service. Trouble there is, a whole lotta people would gamble on not having a fire and not pay the $75 fee, and there wouldn't be enough money to operate...

Also, please do take cover.... The world may end tonight..... Flyboy and I are in agreement.... (well, except for the health care thing...)

Maybe the planet has been knocked off its axis a wee bit today . . .

I retract my previous opinion and ack, upon further review agree with flyboy.

I'm on my way out the door to buy a lottery ticket.

[SchoolGirlHeart]

I'm on my way out the door to buy a lottery ticket.

If you hit it big you're sharing, right?

[johnath2o]

Here is some more "fuel to the fire"!!!

http://statter911.com/2010/10/05/two-ta ... re-critic/

[Marnin Grita Guy]

I was on a volunteer rescue squad that got money to operate through local, state, and federal funds. Our fire department was volunteer as well. The fire dpartment did not question what to do if a house was on fire with someone possibly inside. We did not question what to do at a car wreck or with a heart attack victim. Both of our crews traveled to help smaller crews who might not have equipment that we had. Personal property taxes were cheap anywhere in the county. Now if you live 10 minutes from a fire station under this plan in Kentucky would it not make sense that you would pay more than someone 30 minutes away? I know my uncle who was a Chief for the RCFD would be using language like dang-it, (he did not like saying even that) if he were still alive to hear of this.

Another thought if you are paying this fee and there is not enough water on the tanker engine, (assuming there are hydrants) and there is not a lake or pond within close proximity from which to either connect to a dry hydrant or have a "pumper" engine siphon for water, would you get your money back for the entire time you paid if your house was destroyed? If you are paying for something the same as everyone else you should expect your service to be the same, should you not?

Fingers up to that city manager,

I hope he lives outside the city and a few dozen trees fall acroos the road to his house one night he is not home this winter when fires will be going in fireplaces. Those little cinders can cause big problems.

Oh, and these guys are none too happy about this either. http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf

[V-town Fin Truck]

Well, the city manager may be a buffoon, but I do have to agree with the fact that they didn't pay, so they don't get the service. People always expect the fire department to just come take care of everything, but most do not want to pay for it. They vote down the taxes, people get laid off, and fire stations close. So, number one, this guy should have paid his fee, and it should not be optional... However, payment aside, the fire department should have immediatley responded to protect the exposed homes. Even if they had to let the one burn to the ground, it would be a breech of contract or something for them to not come protect the surrounding homes that did pay the fee.

[Bicycle Bill]

Well, the city manager may be a buffoon, but I do have to agree with the fact that they didn't pay, so they don't get the service. People always expect the fire department to just come take care of everything, but most do not want to pay for it. They vote down the taxes, people get laid off, and fire stations close. So, number one, this guy should have paid his fee, and it should not be optional... However, payment aside, the fire department should have immediatley responded to protect the exposed homes. Even if they had to let the one burn to the ground, it would be a breech of contract or something for them to not come protect the surrounding homes that did pay the fee.

That's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. You protect the homes of the persons who did pay the fee; and that means knocking down a fire in a non-subscriber's house before it becomes a threat to a subscriber, then so be it.

And to citcat, who originally started this thread back in 2008 —
You mentioned that you *HAD* paid the fee, but the FD still waited until your house was "smoking and steaming" before they came. I certainly hope that you had your house inspected for heat/smoke damage; I know I would have.

And if any had been found, I would have quickly found a lawyer who would have slapped a negligence suit for full reimbursement plus punitive damages against the South Fulton FD, the city manager, and anybody else who had any part in this fiasco. I hope the neighbors of the most recent victim do the same thing.

-"BB"-

[Lightning Bolt]

I'm on my way out the door to buy a lottery ticket.

If you hit it big you're sharing, right?

..first, submit your $75 lottery winnings subscription fee

[SchoolGirlHeart]

I'm on my way out the door to buy a lottery ticket.

If you hit it big you're sharing, right?

..first, submit your $75 lottery winnings subscription fee

SPEW!!!!!!!!!

[citcat]

Yeah, the International Association of Fire Fighters DID condemn the fire department here. This is such a fustercluck. FOUR pets were killed in the fire. And the fire department was there, putting water on a neighbors property that HAD paid their fee. WHAT ? They couldn't just let a little water spray on the Crannick's house ? Gary worked with Gene (the owner of the burned house) and he said he was a very straight good guy...it upset him to see him cry on national news.
The town is screwed...what company would want to come here ? When they google South Fulton, what is gonna come up ?
I get heartburn when I start thinking about it.

[buffettbride]

Dumb question---Did your neighbors rebuild the house and do they now pay the fire department fee?

Just askin'....

[UAHparrothead]

I just have to say that despite the contracts and legal BS, there is right and there is wrong and choosing to let the fire burn was just wrong. Four animals died and a family lost everything because of 75 d-mn dollars. You can't buy a pair of firefighting boots for $75. I know they didn't pay, but something could have been worked out in the end to solve that problem. It disgusts me to the core to know that it was all about the money.

[citcat]

Dumb question---Did your neighbors rebuild the house and do they now pay the fire department fee?

Just askin'....

Yes our neighbors rebuilt a whole new house. Yes they DO pay the fee.
Now PETA and the Humane Society are getting involved for the animals who died in a horrible painful way. And the Weather Channel even interviewed Mr. Cranick. The owners of the property next to the Cranicks (it was a field and fencerow trees) went up to the fire department while the house was burning and asked them, "What would it take for you to put out their fire ? WE'LL pay the $75 !!!!!!" They still wouldn't throw a little water on it. By the way, we here (outside the city limits) all get our water from the city of South Fulton and pay for it on a monthly bill. I could go on and on but it just gets more unbelievable.